What is your religion ?

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Ed Gein

I'm sure it'd be fun. We, masons, have many tongues, so Ill be glad to sacrifice one.

How about the forked one?

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Ing

I was christened as an Anglican, but these days I'm agnostic, I suppose.

Well, at least agnosticism is logical from a purely scientific point of view.

I find a lot of religions interesting, but I'd never be able to join any. On the one hand you've got evidence for biological evolution,

You'd be suprised at how sketchy that "evidence" actually is.
You know there are a group of prominent intellectuals, including those within the scientific community, who seriously question Darwinism.
Not because they are opposed to it on any grounds, but because they believe it is founded upon bad science.

but on the other I find it hard to say outright that there's no god.

It's sensible not to jump to conclusions when you don't have all the facts

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Milesian

You'd be suprised at how sketchy that "evidence" actually is.
You know there are a group of prominent intellectuals, including those within the scientific community, who seriously question Darwinism.
Not because they are opposed to it on any grounds, but because they believe it is founded upon bad science.

Really ? I thought supporters of "Intelligent design" were mostly Protestant creationists, and so, not very scientific.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Salaün

Really ? I thought supporters of "Intelligent design" were mostly Protestant creationists, and so, not very scientific.

Actually, the Neo-Darwinist camp like to promote the view that proponents of Intelligent Design (or in fact anyone who opposes Darwinism) must be fundamentalist crazies. In fact, there are a good number of non-theists who question Darwinism.

Think Tank Group Questions Darwinism

Someone like Richard Dawkins is a great example of the fundamentalism inherent within the Darwinist camp.

Here is a good critique of the aforementioned by Prof. Terry Eagleton

LRB | Terry Eagleton : Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

[Cirrus]

Yes, some Neo-Darwinists are as "fundamentalist" as Creationnists are, indeed.

But the theory of Intelligent Design doesn't sound very scientific to me, anyway. I may be wrong, but I think that this criticism of Darwinism is mostly motivate by religious beliefs.

For exemple, are there any atheists who refute Darwin's theories ? It would be interesting.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Salaün

Yes, some Neo-Darwinists are as "fundamentalist" as Creationnists are, indeed.

But the theory of Intelligent Design doesn't sound very scientific to me, anyway. I may be wrong, but I think that this criticism of Darwinism is mostly motivate by religious beliefs.

But that is just what the article above said.
These people are not necessarily religious, and they are not the Creationists of old. The proponents of ID do not declare that the earth is 6000 years old or anything else. All they say is that Darwinism should not be above question or criticism. They believe that there are problems with Darwinism and they believe that they should be able to challenge it in the name of investigative science. It is extremely unscientific of people like Dawkins, Gould and others to attempt to suppress or mock any questioning of Darwinism.

Can you imagine if Einstein had been denounced as "ignorant" or "stupid" because he challenged Newton's laws? The cause of science cannot be progressed by attempting to silence debate over scientific theories.

For exemple, are there any atheists who refute Darwin's theories ?

Yes, there have been many notable scientists, thiests and athiests, who have not been impressed by Darwin's theory.

It would be interesting.

What is interesting is that despite the charges that those challenging Darwinism are all motivated by religious belief, it may be as equally true to say that those militantly defending Darwinism from all criticism are as much motivated by athiestic ideology as by any dedication to science.

[Ariets]

I belief in myself, maybe there's some holy creature watching us, and I think there is but it is hard to specify Allah, Yhwh or Perun (hahaha)? Anyway I like protestantism for more national feelings 9but its also some kind more judeaistic), roman catholism for conservative position (biiiiiiiiig plus) and paganism, but slavic paganism (Gods are friends of humans)

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Salaün

For exemple, are there any atheists who refute Darwin's theories ? It would be interesting.

A google search alone will reveal info about atheists who question the shaky foundations of Darwinism, a theory that not only fails the scientific criteria of being reproduceble under experimental conditions, but actually is in conflict with other branches of the sciences (ie. Physiology for one).

I strongly believe that we need academic freedom. We need the right to discuss this issue--that’s the main concern that I have. Darwinism now has blinded people to important research areas. And in order to look into these areas, for example the degeneration of the genome, we need to realize that maybe Darwinism doesn’t explain everything. Maybe other theories are more viable. This is the problem that Lynn Margulis has. She’s looking at another theory and she is getting much resistance. She is an atheist, and an evolutionist, but she’s looking at a different mechanism--so she hasn’t been totally ostracized from the academic community, but, nonetheless, she’s written a fair amount about academic freedom and the problems that she has had in her career. And so it is a major problem when this straitjacket is put on people, that they can look at the universe only in one way, and attempts to look at it in other ways, which may support, or may not support, creationism or intelligent design; they don’t want people to go into this direction. And if they see where you are going, there’s resistance

The Religion of Vague

[Waarnemer]

Yes, there have been many notable scientists, thiests and athiests, who have not been impressed by Darwin's theory.

there is no credibility in a point of view in which people try to refute a fact simply because it conflicts with own interests, unscientific. ok, its debatable what could be considered as notable and what the point is, either way jerry bergman is far from notable or it would be as infamous. also you keep referring to darwins theory giving an impression that evolution would equal darwins findings. i don't know if you do that on purpose though, thought i should mention it.

darwin isn't above question nor criticism like you say, his findings are empirical so that would be a contradiction. what is above question and criticism among christians is religion, even if god would exist you wouldn't dare to question him so it would be an idea to stop reflection own faulty upon evolution

now i doubt there is even one single scientist alive today who would question microevolution, its very hard to question something which can be observed with the naked eye, and that brings us to macroevolution, although the evidence is utterly overwhelming its an 'easy' target for people like you yourself, but if something contradicts with your believes and its being proved, its up to you to reflect and over think your own ideas

[Erasmus]

Originally Posted by Ariets

I belief in myself, maybe there's some holy creature watching us, and I think there is but it is hard to specify Allah, Yhwh or Perun (hahaha)? Anyway I like protestantism for more national feelings 9but its also some kind more judeaistic), roman catholism for conservative position (biiiiiiiiig plus) and paganism, but slavic paganism (Gods are friends of humans)

Syncretist

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

there is no credibility in a point of view in which people try to refute a fact simply because it conflicts with own interests, unscientific.

this is exactly the charge laid against today's Darwinists.
They treat Darwinism as an unquestionable Holy of Holies, the highest Dogma, not because it is a proven scientific fact (because it isn't), but rather because it offers a possible model of existence without a God.
It appeals to their Atheism, not their love of science.

ok, its debatable what could be considered as notable and what the point is, either way jerry bergman is far from notable or it would be as infamous. also you keep referring to darwins theory giving an impression that evolution would equal darwins findings. i don't know if you do that on purpose though, thought i should mention it.

Darwin posited the theory of Macroevolution, that we descend from monkeys, from shrew-like creatures, from more primitive things from this or that all the way back to a single celled organism. In other words, for Darwin to be correct then one species has to mutate into a new one.
That has never been observed or verified.

In any case, the problem is not necessarily that Darwinism is wrong.
It is the refusal to even contemplate any other possible theories that is so very dangerous to science. This is the very dogmatic fundamentalism that Neo-Darwinists project onto any dissenters from their official orthodox view.

darwin isn't above question nor criticism like you say, his findings are empirical so that would be a contradiction. what is above question and criticism among christians is religion, even if god would exist you wouldn't dare to question him so it would be an idea to stop reflection own faulty upon evolution

Personally, I don't know any Christian who don't have doubts about God.
I do know many atheists who are 100% certain that there is no God, however.
I even used to be one myself. You can judge for yourself who are the more close-minded

now i doubt there is even one single scientist alive today who would question microevolution,

The essence of Darwinism is MACROevolution. That is what is being questioned. No-one is questioning Variation Within The Species.
In fact, that is what Neo-Darwinists often try to pass off as "proof" of Darwinism today.

its very hard to question something which can be observed with the naked eye, and that brings us to macroevolution, although the evidence is utterly overwhelming

The "evidence" is utterly circumstantial.
It fulfils no scientific proofs. It is not observable. It is not verifiable. It cannot be reproduced by experiment. It is utterly lacking is anything that would normally constitute a scientific proof.

What many people are now concerned with is not that Darwinism may be wrong. I am perfectly open to the possibility that it may be right.
It is the refusal to even listen to any alternatives that is a serious threat to scientific progress.

The Neo-Darwinists seek to protect their theory at all costs because anything else might open up to the possibility that there maybe intelligent design to life. And that would represent a threat to their Athiestic ideology.
That is why they are so militantly aggressive to anything which attacks their precious theory.

its an 'easy' target for people like you yourself, but if something contradicts with your believes and its being proved, its up to you to reflect and over think your own ideas

What you have written above is a textbook example of what psychologists call "Projection"

The real fundamentalists are perhaps closer to home than you might like to think.