[TUT317]

Hi Asking,

Yes it does. Thanks very much.

Regards
Tut

[dontknownuthin]

For clarification I'm not suggesting the theory of evolution is invalid science. Rather, I'm suggesting that some religious extremists think it is. I'm not among them.
There is an ongoing debate between these individuals and those who accept evolution as valid scientific fact, and it is a theological argument so is in the theology section.

In addition, I think the opposite that you've laid out here about religious and scientific methodology. I think that religion begins with ancient texts - the Torah, Qu'ran, Bible. We don't look at today's world an go back and construct religion to suit it but rather try to cling to our ancient beliefs and reconcile those beliefs with the modern world.

I believe science starts with the present and does move backward. We are trying to understand why things are as they are, so are going backward trying to unravel what we know to figure out how it came to be. For example, we don't know what causes cancer and then figure out it will create cancer - rather, we find the cancer then go back and try to figure out what caused it.

I don't think you "need" to start another thread either, but your question implies you don't like that there isn't one where you want it to be, so thus, I suggested you might start one there if you wish and see if anyone responds. They probably would.

[TUT317]

In addition, I think the opposite that you've laid out here about religious and scientific methodology. I think that religion begins with ancient texts - the Torah, Qu'ran, Bible. We don't look at today's world an go back and construct religion to suit it but rather try to cling to our ancient beliefs and reconcile those beliefs with the modern world.

I believe science starts with the present and does move backward. We are trying to understand why things are as they are, so are going backward trying to unravel what we know to figure out how it came to be. For example, we don't know what causes cancer and then figure out it will create cancer - rather, we find the cancer then go back and try to figure out what caused it.

HI DKN,

I think an example of starting with the conclusion and working backwards would be that creationism would argue that the Bible says (possibly indirectly) that the world is 6,500 years old. Everything else seems to follow from this.

That basically is their conclusion. It is of little point just putting forward a conclusion without facts to support this conclusion. The reason being is that science will, 'get the jump' on them so to speak and put forward empirical evidence to prove the world is much older.

They are left with no alternative but to work backwards from their conclusion. In other words, try and find empirical evidence which doesn't support or goes against the earth being as old as it is.

Because of this approach it becomes an extremely difficult battle for them to win. This is because of the, 'weight of evidence' which supports the earth being 4.5 billion years old compared to the physical evidence which supports the earth being much younger.

Tut

[dontknownuthin]

OK - don't get it but we'll agree to disagree!