Subscription Center
Few flying cars and no fountains of youth: Since 2000 many old science goals have remained as far away as ET's signals
December 31, 2009 | 107
2009 marked both the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin 's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his On the Origin of Species ....[More]
Recently dubbed the Forty Years' War by The New York Times , the long road to curing cancer is strewn with myriad provisional treatments—and countless combative metaphors....[More]
Regardless of who killed the electric car , it has shown few zombie-like tendencies in this decade. Since GM and others pulled the plug on their programs in the 1990s, electric cars have remained pretty much as dead as a road-tested battery after 40 miles....[More]
In the 1990s, improving your neural networks might have seemed as simple as popping a ginkgo supplement and opening up the Sunday crossword . That decade, proclaimed the Decade of the Brain by President George H....[More]
By 2000 , the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project had swept a good chunk of the Milky Way for radio signals and come up with not much more than static—even a move to look for optical signs in 2001 has yet to locate any nearby neighbors....[More]
Advances in technical analysis and several big finds have moved the passing decade's study of human origins along steadily, making it "a thrilling one for paleoanthropology ," says Kate Wong , a paleontology editor for Scientific American ....[More]
With many of the world's glaciers melting and millions of climate refugees projected to soon be on the move, the swiftness of government regulations to slow these changes has been comparatively, well, glacial....[More]
By 1997, some 25 million people worldwide had contracted HIV (the human immunodeficiency virus). That year, President Bill Clinton set up a special center at the National Institutes of Health to develop a vaccine for HIV, setting a goal of a decade for completion....[More]
Wind farms might be sprouting across the country, but about 7 percent of the energy that they—and other sources—generate is still getting lost to inefficient transport in the country's aging power grid ....[More]
Although the deep oceans sometimes get in on the game, space remains the final frontier—still holding the cool, distant allure that it has for decades....[More]
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
A Surge in CT and MRI Scans Has Not Boosted Diagnosis Rates
Should Doctors Disclose Conflicts of Interest to Trial Patients?
New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You
The Future of Humankind
Letters
Safety Survey Reveals Lab Risks
Reality Check: The Inevitable Disappointments from Stem Cells
Can Too Much Information Harm Patients? [Excerpt]
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
107 Comments
Add CommentPsh that's nothing. Imagine where our society will be 800 years from now. That's where we should be today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf religion were not allowed to vilify knowledge and persecute the pursuit of science for 800 or so years, we'd be colonizing space by now.
Though something tells me, we'd still have a large percentage of the human population committed to trying to make 2nd century society work, and we'd still forge on in spite of them.
Seems to me Science can be as dangerous if not more so than religion. Religion did not invent the atomic bomb.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as there are human beings who aspire to power without accountability, there will be people of faith laying down their lives to defend the innocent and the weak. Religion will not hold science back but it will hold certain scientists accountable who seek to dominate others because of their will to power.
Thank God for scientists who respect the role religion plays in providing a conscience for the human community.
Religion does not equal conscience -- both history and current events demonstrate this. Even religious texts portray both a loving and wrathful god and we use our conscience to decide which to follow. You just need to be able to put yourself in another person's position to have a conscience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would disagree that religion fosters accountability. So many people do evil things in the name of religion and feel they are only accountable to god. I'm sure more people are killed by the religious than by the nuclear scientists.
Your "creationist nonsense" link is behind a paywall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligions maybe did not invent the atomic bomb, but it sure invented religious wars such as the Crusades and countless others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd as for "scientists who seek to dominate others because of their will to power. " Is that really different from " Lets go destroy these heathens heretics, God wills it!!! "
Scruplus98 : Religion has killed millions more than any of the two atomic bombs did...Why don't all you that try to "tag" this on Religion & understand one thing...It all going to prove there is a Creator...& it's going to suprise the hell out of those who thinks we humans are only a few thousnd years old, Because my Creator put this all together Billions of years before our own Big Bang...At least that's my "Bang " on things...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anybody heard of the Martin Jetpack?With a larger engine,weather shield and in a two seat type,you have a flying car.As it is, you have a propeller driven VTOL,30 minute duration flight craft for about 100,000 dollars,but it needs a lower price,bigger fuel tank and a greater weight capacity before sales take off,if you pardon the pun.In any case you will see many of these craft flying around in the next few years.Being much cheaper than a helicopter,small law enforcement departments will buy them for many different uses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Religion has killed millions more than any of the two atomic bombs did"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAtheism killed even more. Stalin: 20 million. Mao: 35 million. Pol Pot: 1.6 million.
Oh, and just to forestall the predictable response, I am using the same criteria for labeling a regime "atheist," as you are using to label one "religious."
IF you believe in God naturally through your own actually beliefs is one thing, but the problme with religion for me is parents brainwashing their children0(0-8) to act a certain way, do certain things or else they're going to spend an eternity in hell. If it makes sense to you that there is a God, fine, but dont shove it down a childs throat so they have no choice but to believe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with religion is the fact it is being stuffed down the throats of vulnerable children (0-8) who cant defend themselves from it. If you are 30 years old and can make a judgemental decision about whether you're a Christian, Budhist, Baptist etc is one thing. When you're 5 years old and told if you dont believe in Jeebus you're going to hell is not fair to the child as a person in whole. Who know what some of todays youth and youth's past could've have accomplished with religion being shoved down your throat. No beef with religion but within that age range the youth just dont stand a chance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion supported western science more than any other institution in history. This was not just medieval science but also modern science, look at all the big names in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, count how many priests there are, and see where the money comes from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion and "God wills it" do not fully explain the crusades. You need to look at the financial and political motivations as well. Looking at the supporting facts... is that too scientific for anti-religion crowd here?
When I look at the facts behind science, I see that it is mostly taught in exactly the way you say religion works. We make claims and say that "you can prove it by experiment" without saying how, and without saying that really none of you in this room will ever have the skill or apparatus to prove any of what I am teaching you. All you have is this book, and me in front of you telling you what to think, and threatening you with a low grade if you don't tell me what I want to hear. I don't believe that that's how science gets its truth, but it's definitely how most universities teach it.
And that's also how the anti-religion people leaving comments here are making science look. Ever read through Phil Platt's Bad Science comments about religion? He makes up the facts as he goes, and covers up by joking about it, things that no real scientist should ever do.
Where is the evidence that mutations are ALWAYS random? There is obvious evidence that the evolutionary process exhibits hierarchical order, that is somehow ignored. Can hierarchical order be created by random accident? If so, how does it do this? For example there are homeobox genes that control or regulate batteries of subordinate genes in a mutually consistent developmental pattern even across species. Moreover they work in conjunction with parallel transcription requirements that must also have happened as rare accidental mutations in a gradual way, even though they work to produce major divergences in development patterns on an all or none basis. This is clearly not consistent with Darwins hypothesis. We need a new paradigm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many examples of hierarchical order up through the plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates to humans that subsume hierarchical levels within each level. This evidence clearly suggests that there is an underlying hierarchical order to the evolutionary process that also allows for random order, not vice versa. You do not have to be a creationist to see this. There is more at www.cosmic-mindreach.com.
Analyze the above posts as a sociological study. The actual article is about scientific progress, or the lack of it, in the recent decade. Most of the comments scarcely touch that but immediately become an exchange of rants between two sets of "true believers."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's as polarized as the comments that usually follow an article on any government activity. Whatever happened to intelligent truth-seeking dialogue?
@frgough, "Atheism killed even more." it's always just a matter of time before you show up and make an idiotic statement. Atheism is not an organised belief. There is no bible. There is no church. There are no leaders. Those individuals did not do what they did for the cause of Atheism. Nothing about Atheism gave them the ideological grounding to commit those atrocities. As has been said, with or without religion good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But it takes religion for good people to do bad things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrgough, for a person devoid of reason and full of hatred of science you sure do spend a great deal of time here. Why don't you go where hatred, ignorance and intolerance are welcome, like a church?
I admit, I do like provoking discussion. Sometimes thoughtful, but sometimes just to see the fireworks show, as in this thread.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@roggen, "I see that it is mostly taught in exactly the way you say religion works" I love it when religious nuts condemn science by saying we are just like them. I can think of nothing more damning. "but it's definitely how most universities teach it" how would you know that? Have you studied science at most universities? I don't think you have ever read one book on science let alone studied it. This is yet another lie casually invented because you think it sounds believable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"you have is this book, and me in front of you telling you what to think, and threatening you with a low grade if you don't tell me what I want to hear." Conducting experiments is a core part of any science program. Science is a process, like engineering. I can trust the results of science precisely because it is a process, just as I can trust that an elevator or airplane is safe without needing to perform my own personal engineering analysis of the device. But, if I do have questions I can check the science myself. I can replicate the experiments or I can read how the scientist came to their conclusions. I can also look at how others were able to replicate the findings and compare. Science is self-correcting. It has to be. It exists BECAUSE people are flawed. Religion is self perpetuating. It exploits human flaws to advance its own cause. When religion makes mistakes, it denies it, tortures and murders the descentors, buries its head in the sand; it is science and the legal system (which is also based on evidence) that discovers the errors.
@roggen, "God wills it' do not fully explain the crusades." exactly! People of faith have also committed great atrocities for their own personal gain rather than to further god's great plan; but they have used God to give them the moral authority to do so. Because god's will must be acted on without question what could anyone do to argue against them? Just as you and your creationist cohorts constantly demonstrate by your postings here, religion defends itself by denying the evidence, by misinformation, by lying, by attacking the descentors and finally by claiming that they are accountable to no one but god. Just as no creationist who has ever posted here has ever accepted my challenge and proven that god exists, religious authorities do not believe they need to justify their beliefs. There beliefs are, by default, the truth. Only "evil" people would disagree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnlike science, the problem with religion is not a few bad apples, it is the system itself. A system of absolute authority, that must be accepted without question, that can justify any action, with no intellectual process to determine rules, with no appeals process to re-examine decisions. If god did exist and he wanted us to live in peace and harmony, he would not abide such a system that could ultimately be so easily abused by the people he knows are flawed, because he made them that way.
@Weir, "Where is the evidence that mutations are ALWAYS random", where is your evidence that they aren't. If they aren't random then there must be a mechanism to "create" them. You must prove the mechanism. It is not up to us to prove a mechanism doesn't exist. Random mutations do not require a mechanism beyond what is conferred by chemical processes therefore, by Occam's razor, it is the better hypothesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is obvious evidence that the evolutionary process exhibits hierarchical order" what evidence is that? The bacteria alive today have been evolving as long as we have, longer if you count time in number of generations. Time certainly permits the evolution of more complex life but that certainly does not imply that complexity is a "goal" of evolution.
"Can hierarchical order be created by random accident? If so, how does it do this?", first; you are "inventing" a property of the system and then using that to discredit it. You have not proven your hypothesis that "the evolutionary process exhibits hierarchical order" so until you do we don't need to replace evolution with a theory that agrees with your hypothesis.
Second; please prove this, "This is clearly not consistent with Darwins hypothesis." Please demonstrate how it is not possible that hox genes could have evolved. And just to prevent the inevitable B.S. please justify any assumptions you try to use as proof.
...or are you just cutting and pasting a quote from a creationist website without any understanding of what you are talking about?
"You do not have to be a creationist to see this." yes you do. No one else is that gullible.
As always, you are making up hypotheses without doing any groundwork to prove them and then expecting everyone to automatically discard the proven science for your daydreams. Instead of getting your science from a bunch of idiots why don't you actually read some real science literature? Or are your beliefs too fragile to withstand the facts?
By the way, this isn't an evolution article so please find one and post there.
I'd be happy if they just brought back low flying Dirigibles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Unbeliever, historically speaking scientists or heretics as they were referred to were tortured and/or executed when they challenged church dogma, which made it difficult to do science. During the dark ages science and technology were at a standstill for hundreds of years while religion brutalized Europe. It is true that in the 18 and 19th centuries it was not uncommon for scientists to be members of the clergy but that had more to do with the "perks" of the job, abundant free time to do their studies, rather than a partnership between those that search for knowledge and those that demonize it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Some of the most misguided and murderous actions of humanity have been done in the name of secular, scientific progress." and what would those be? And please, could you point to chapter and verse in the science bible that authorized those "murderous actions?" Something like,
"You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favourably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you." Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9
There is nothing in science that claims that murdering people is morally justified. Science tells us the nature of the universe, it doesn't provide moral guidance or value judgements. On the other hand religion does claim to provide moral guidance. Not only that, but it claims that it is uniquely able to do so. In fact, when all other arguments fail, theists tend to cling to their misguided and self serving belief that religion is the source of morality. Yet we have seen time and time again those of faith committing terrible crimes against humanity and claiming to do so in order to fulfill god's will. The scary thing is; they can find just as much justification for their actions in the bible as the missionary who brings medicine and food to the poor. As I said, it is the very nature of religion that makes it a dangerous institution.
Science and religion are not compatible. The fact that some people have been able to fit both in their lives speaks to the incredible complexity of the human mind rather than a compatibility of ideology. As I have said before, a religious scientist is like a fat doctor who smokes.
Religion is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to create morality and neither is science. Morality and even religion comes from nature itself and man's owe evolution and both science and religion are possible paths to greater moral codes that improve equality, fairness, altruism, safety, equity and freedom (or good as some would say). But at once they are both possible paths toward that which we also call evil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real truth of our universe, IMO, is that all things are relative and indeterminate (not absolute and deterministic) and so where ever we get our guidance from, we need to understand that what we create of it all is simply what we choose, hopefully together, to make of it. So if we can just find better ways to come together, create true commonality amongst all, and find true common treads of agreement, we really can get there from here.
I believe that science and reason, that IMO seems to lead to far more universal truths, has a far better propensity for commonality amongst all and so that is the one and only path I follow. But for others, science (a truly deep and wide understanding of the natural world and physical universe) may be well out of their reach and thus may be of no use for them and thus religion may be the only path they can and ever will follow. But IMO, religion is based on little more than faith and thus very, very big assumptions that, woefully, vary greatly even within the major faiths. Thus religion tends to do far more to deeply divide us locally and globally than ever really bringing us all together. So again, I am sticking with science. However, as long as so many follow no path at all to betterment, really and bringing us together, and more in balance with the biosphere on which we so desperately depend, I am unsure we will ever get there from here.
The marxism is not a fair science, but a dogma
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthat fits well (except the word "supernatural")
the definition of religion from Wikipedia:
"A religion is a set of beliefs
concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,
especially when considered as the creation of a
supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving
devotional and ritual observances, and often containing
a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
The predictions are remarkable to distinguish the
true science and technology from the religions and marxism:
- scientific predictions are clear to uderstand, they are
either fulfilled or Letdowned but seemingly valid for a future.
- religious prophesies are either obscure like that of Nostradamus
or they seem invalid for non-belivers, like communism in 1980
or apocalipsys in 2000.
"You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favourably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you." Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conquest of Canaan by Israel cannot be compared to any man-made war.
The city of Jericho was given 7 days to make peace, to no avail. Still faithful individuals in the city were preserved. Whole cities like Gibeon were preserved alive for showing faith. When their former allies retaliated, Joshua rightfully avenged the Gibeonites, destroying their foes. In fact, most cities did not even want to make peace because they were too wicked to perceive the reality.
Atheism is a philosophy that attempts to explain reality, just as is religion. Communism openly embraces this philosophy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDeal with it.
Fabrice LOTTY,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you really think that a hasty judgement (and execution)
is compatible with morality?
It seems that the following verdict was made without
the due court procedures, advocates, etc.:
"The city of Jericho was given 7 days to make peace,
to no avail. Still faithful individuals in the city were preserved."
The nowaday terrorists use a similar reasoning, spuriously
pretending to be a self-appointed judges.
The science is different. It does not incite hostility.
It is slow in making decisions, it scrutinizes each logic step of proof,
requires repeatability of observations, etc.
@frgough, again you are wrong. You must be accustomed to that by now. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is a position and it doesn't explain anything. Atheists do not need to explain why they do not believe a case has been made for the existence of magical beings. Rather, it is the responsibility of those asserting that those beings exist to prove their position. By the way, everyone is an atheist to some degree. I am sure even the most radical theist has one god they don't believe in, whether that be yahweh, thor or zeus. Let's face it, they can't all exist as they are not all compatible. Atheists just apply the same logic to all gods and don't make exceptions for the one they like best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs your communism remark just another one of your non-sequiturs or were you trying to say something? Are you trying to say that communism is a good thing because the philosophy is obviously based on rational thought? If so, that would be an ad hominem fallacy which is just one of the many fallacies you seem to employ when posting here. While I can understand why you personally would support a political philosophy that imposes its will on the people without intellectual process, since that seems to be your own intention here, I don't think cherry-picking one seemingly rational position justifies the reality of that form of government.
It is amazing how many errors you can make in even a very short posting. But really, ignorant and irrational are no way for you to go through life. Then again, it is unlikely that you will be anything but. So, I guess you should just "deal with it".
@Fabrice, "The conquest of Canaan by Israel cannot be compared to any man-made war." why? Because you say so? Is it because when you kill in the name of god, it is a good thing? Or is it that as long as you kill people that believe differently than you, you are doing the lords work? I guess I didn't read the fine print on the ten commandments. Ideas like that are why we have had and continue to have genocide. Thanks for making the world a better place. And thanks for demonstrating why religion is a pestilence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@robert schmidt, I agree with your postings but this is the SciAm comments section, since when has the combined IQ of all the posters here reached above sea-level. Don't waste your breath, this site doesn't monitor comments. They should add a third button, [reply] [report abuse] [crank]. But please don't lump all religions together, I'm an engineer (ie. scientist) and I'm a theist. It's just my religion is thousands of years older than the abrahamic ones of which you speak. The 'tao of physics' by Fritjof Capra, is a good example of what I'm talking/writing about. Some religious philosophies are compatable with science just not the ones that sprung from abraham (as they are taught today).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRather than comment on religion, yawn, I'll write that this article is in line with the cynical times. 100 hundred years ago we'd probably be reading about the exciting expected innovations of the coming century, and instead we're reading about the failures of the past century. Perhaps, though, it is just a departure from SciaAm's usually reporting on the exciting innovations of tomorrow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@robert schmidt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand many have been disgusted with religion as a whole.
However, the Bible account is of extraordinary decency.
Archaeologists agree people living in Canaan had become so immoral and barbarous that they even burned their children for their false gods. The warning was not given for just few days. Some 400 years ago, Abraham toured the country but was told not to settle because the sin of the Amorites had not yet come to completion. So the people there had enough time to change. Unfortunately they became more wicked, beyond repair. Archaeologists wonder why God did not destroy them earlier.
The destruction not only was righteous judgment, but served as a protection for the Israelites not to learn those bad practices. They were told not to annihilate cities far away, only those nearby cities. The Promised Land did become a better place for the Israelites, the mixed crowd following them from Egypt and the Canaanites of the repentant city of Gibeon. No more human sacrifices, bloodsheds and gross immorality.
Besides, the people could suffer the same woes if they followed that bad conduct. And they often did.
Though the judgment was grander than what we have in courts, procedures were followed and the outcome was predictable. Sounds rational?
@robert schmidt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand many have been disgusted with religion as a whole.
However, the Bible account is of extraordinary decency.
Archaeologists agree people living in Canaan had become so immoral and barbarous that they even burned their children for their false gods. The warning was not given for just few days. Some 400 years ago, Abraham toured the country but was told not to settle because the sin of the Amorites had not yet come to completion. So the people there had enough time to change. Unfortunately they became more wicked, beyond repair. Archaeologists wonder why God did not destroy them earlier.
The destruction not only was righteous judgment, but served as a protection for the Israelites not to learn those bad practices. They were told not to annihilate cities far away, only those nearby cities. The Promised Land did become a better place for the Israelites, the mixed crowd following them from Egypt and the Canaanites of the repentant city of Gibeon. No more human sacrifices, bloodsheds and gross immorality.
Besides, the people could suffer the same woes if they followed that bad conduct. And they often did.
Though the judgment was grander than what we have in courts, procedures were followed and the outcome was predictable. Sounds rational?
@robert schmidt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand many have been disgusted with religion as a whole.
However, the Bible account is of extraordinary decency.
Archaeologists agree people living in Canaan had become so immoral and barbarous that they even burned their children for their false gods. The warning was not given for just few days. Some 400 years ago, Abraham toured the country but was told not to settle because the sin of the Amorites had not yet come to completion. So the people there had enough time to change. Unfortunately they became more wicked, beyond repair. Archaeologists wonder why God did not destroy them earlier.
The destruction not only was righteous judgment, but served as a protection for the Israelites not to learn those bad practices. They were told not to annihilate cities far away, only those nearby cities. The Promised Land did become a better place for the Israelites, the mixed crowd following them from Egypt and the Canaanites of the repentant city of Gibeon. No more human sacrifices, bloodsheds and gross immorality.
Besides, the people could suffer the same woes if they followed that bad conduct. And they often did.
Though the judgment was grander than what we have in courts, procedures were followed and the outcome was predictable. Sounds rational?
@Fabrice LOTY, "Archaeologists wonder why God did not destroy them earlier." What Archaeologists wonder that? Please name them!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuring the US invasion of the Japanese controlled islands during WWII the Japanese inhabitants were told that Americans would come and eat them. As a result the Japanese often chose suicide rather than face the Americans. It is very common for one side to claim the opposing side are all "monsters" in order to justify their actions against them. Only gullible people such as yourself would believe the propaganda and therefore gladly justify mass murder.
"Unfortunately they became more wicked, beyond repair", how do you know that? Was a psychological exam done? And define wicked. Was every single person wicked? Is wicked defined as believing differently? Are "wicked" children also OK to slaughter? How about wicked pregnant women?
"However, the Bible account is of extraordinary decency." yes because you consider killing your opponents decent. I doubt there is any action you would consider indecent if it were sanctioned by god.
@Fabrice LOTY, here are some more glorious acts of god for you to celebrate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgod forces a woman to marry her rapist;
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29
god demands urban rape victims be murdered
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-24
god sanctions rape of prisoners
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." Deuteronomy 21:10-14
God sets the rules for selling one's daughter as a sex slave
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again." Exodus 21:7-11
god's direct involvement in rape and plunder
"Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city" Zechariah 14:1-2
I am sure you consider all these acts to be decent simply because god wills it. People such as you need nothing more. As far as I am concerned, "money" has a strong challenger for the title, "root of all evil".
Science didn't create crusades, inquisitions, or suicide-bombers either. Both need intelligence to properly guide humanity (thus far religion has succeeded only in creating misguided leaders who believe that "God" will save them and destroy their enemies (by providing them with better technology) and science has created people who realize that humans are a dangerous species and more than capable of destroying everything we hold dear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrgough: Atheism is NOT the same as Science. In fact, the vast majority of atheist governments look at any contributions to the world that are not originating from their own society as inherently dangerous to their culture. Just as religion is an exclusive "club" so is tyrannical atheism governments. If you are such a religious nut why do you even look at this website (it'd be like an intelligent scientist reading Papal Literature).
Uff..Let's get back to the article's subject and put theology aside. I think the main reason that most or these projects are far behind schedule is MONEY and the lack of political and financial motivation. WARS on the other hand have these incentives and TRILLIONS of dolars,rubles, pounds, marcs, etc are pour every year to satisfay this industry that is far into the future in terms of scientific and technology advances. Investments in warfare pay dividends immediately while medical, automotive, biology has a rate of return that most of the times take decades. But again, if enough money were put to this issues maybe the benefits would be seen sooner than later.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUff..Let's get back to the article's subject and put theology aside. I think the main reason that most or these projects are far behind schedule is MONEY and the lack of political and financial motivation. WARS on the other hand have these incentives and TRILLIONS of dolars,rubles, pounds, marcs, etc are pour every year to satisfay this industry that is far into the future in terms of scientific and technology advances. Investments in warfare pay dividends immediately while medical, automotive, biology has a rate of return that most of the times take decades. But again, if enough money were put to this issues maybe the benefits would be seen sooner than later.Live lng and prosper...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@robert schmidt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeedless to pressurize archaeologists excavating remains in Biblical lands. The story about the Canaanites is well known.
The city of Jericho was overthrown without human intervention. Thus, no man-made strategy can repeat that. Any one claiming Gods support in physical warfare should follow such a pattern, with miraculous signs pointing to divine judgmentship.
Rahab the prostitute was saved for showing faith. Others were globally wicked. The God who shook the walls of Jericho was also able to bind them together into judgment, with the prospect of resurrection during the final judgment Day. Interestingly, Rahab believed, but her family survived as a whole. This helps understand how divine justice works.
During final judgment, people will be judged individually.
Concerning a man abusing a virgin and being required to marry her, you need to put things into context. Being married was a protection for a woman back then. Once a woman lost her virginity, she would hardly find a partner, nor expect being treated with dignity in the society. For instance, Tamar the daughter of David, after being raped, begged the perpetrator to marry her to remove the shame from her. You just need to get the flavor and the tone of the Biblical context to understand the man was the looser.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@robert Schmidt: “god demands urban rape victims be murdered”.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-24
It is quite clear the law said the girl would be executed if she did not cry out. The provision was simple enough for the girl to escape being raped (people were taught to know a girl crying out meant much) and escape being executed (she just had to cry out to be acquitted).
@robert Schmidt: “god sanctions rape of prisoners”.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConcerning God sanctioning rape of prisoners, I guess this is the pick of decency.
@robert Schmidt: “God sets the rules for selling one's daughter as a sex slave”.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again." Exodus 21:7-11
The people of Israel were termed the “inheritance of Jehovah”. So, even their rulers were not to belittle them. There could be nothing as “sex slave” in the law. On the contrary, if an Israelite fell into poverty, and had not option but to slave for his brother (according to ancient customs) he was no ordinary slave. He was considered a hired labourer, with due payment.
What of a girl? Her slavish condition of necessity followed the standard set for men. Many regulations were written in masculine form though addressing everybody. The specifics for the girl had to do with her marital relationship with the master. If he did not love her, he could be tempted to use her as mere slave, but this was prohibited. So the man had the opportunity and the obligation to release her before time.
@robert Schmidt: “god's direct involvement in rape and plunder”.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city" Zechariah 14:1-2
What would you say of news reporters describing the disastrous condition of a war-torn area?
Well, prophecy is history written before time. God sent his prophet to announce the catastrophic results of waywardness. Interestingly, God also announced he would punish the invader for going beyond it’s appointed mission.
Ever wonder what kind of World we'd have if everyone would allow all to believe it what they want to believe in with out being put to death becaues they have a different out look or thought?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really do not believe any man or woman knows the answer, because " They" whom ever they may be don't kow the answer any more than I do, & won't until the Big Day we here " Tee Hee come on in anyway... You had it all worng too because you never did understand the world LOVE , or my message to LOVE ONE ANOTHER!" I may have it all worng as well as you, but ask any Native: Regardless of County ~ What happened to their Medicne Man?"... Who today we look at as the Scientific
Community...
Likewise, it is not nice to shove Evolution down God believer's throats either. I think that Ben Stein's movie has shown that Evolutionists are not as open-minded as scientific theory purports. Ben clearly showed that anyone willing to even discuss Intellegent Design or Creationism puts their jobs on the line.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe if Evolutionsits would openly envite critical review of Darwin & Evolution and accept open discussion (both verbal and in print) this would dispel the poor acceptance of Evolution. Hey, it could even help the theory of evolution develop in ways no one has thought of, yet.
@Fabrice LOTY, "Needless to pressurize archaeologists excavating remains in Biblical lands" in other words you are a liar. You made it up. Here is another quote for you, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord" Zechariah 13:3. Or does the bad stuff in the bible only apply to your enemies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The city of Jericho was overthrown without human intervention." prove it.
"she just had to cry out to be acquitted". Rapist tend to understand that a woman "crying out" could be a problem for them so they will physically and/or psychologically prevent this by forcing their hand over the woman's mouth while threatening to kill her if she screams. So, if a woman is raped and threatened with murder to keep her silent your god would have her killed. And you are ok with that!
"You just need to get the flavor and the tone of the Biblical context to understand the man was the looser." you are one sick individual. The man raped her! Now she is forced to be with him for life, thus being raped again this time with god holding her down. She isn't given a choice whether or not she will have him as her husband. If god truly wanted to help her he would force the man to pay to keep her all her life while not forcing her to be his wife. And to be consistent, he should have the man stoned for his sex crime just as he has women stoned. Also, the bible is supposed to be relevant for all time. We shouldn't need to understand the context. If the bible is no longer relevant it should be discarded.
"I guess this is the pick of decency", what!? Please explain that.
"Her slavish condition of necessity followed the standard set for men." so the male slaves were obliged to have sex with their masters? I thought god wasn't into homosexuality. You don't get it. This woman is being sold! She has no choice. And if the man doesn't like her he can dump her with no responsibility. And as you have said, what is the chance that once she has been used by her master that she will find a husband?
"God sent his prophet to announce the catastrophic results of waywardness." yes god is threatening people with rape and murder if they don't do what he says. Today that is called terrorism. Apparently there is no crime so severe, so grotesque, so monstrous that you would find god guilty of a crime against humanity.
The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! Nahum 1:2
That is the moral guidance Abraham's religions have to offer.
You've not featured the truly major scientific let-down of the decade, even the century:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe humans do not behave any more wisely now than we did earlier. We still despoil the planet and lay waste to it like no other species does; we squander resources on all manner of foolishness. In short, we have become like a cancer let loose on the body of Planet Earth.
Science has done very little to bring out wisdom in the way we behave.
To be fair, religion has done far less.
GSC
I think brainwashing is rather a strong word ...where do you draw the line between brainwashing and not brainwashing? There are lots of messed-up kids out there coming out of non-religious families ... have they been brainwashed too with some "heretic teaching"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I think that Ben Stein's movie has shown that Evolutionists are not as open-minded as scientific theory purports. Ben clearly showed that anyone willing to even discuss Intellegent Design or Creationism puts their jobs on the line."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooks like some one neglected to read any of SCIAM's articles on Ben Stein's so called documentary. Just because someone makes a film doesn't mean any of it is actually true, and in the case of 'No Intelligence Allowed' 99.999999% of it is pure rubbish.
"Maybe if Evolutionsits would openly envite critical review of Darwin & Evolution and accept open discussion (both verbal and in print) this would dispel the poor acceptance of Evolution."
LOL, you are joking right??? You would be hard pressed to find a theory that has under gone more scrutiny than the theory of evolution.
"Hey, it could even help the theory of evolution develop in ways no one has thought of, yet."
You don't even know what the theory of evolution is do you.
Now today we are seeing an unprecedented decline in religion in the industrialized world. Has this led to a boon in scientific pursuits?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of how one answers that, most agree it has coincided with increased murder/suicide rates, an increasing rich/poor divide, decreased civility, and increased apathy. One telling sign is the increased litigiousness and reluctance to compromise.
Give this, I would hesitate to blame religion for the current state of scientific advancement.
Rick_U,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific advances depend on a few prominent individuals
to develop a theory, and on funding to make experiments/observations.
Neither of these two factors are in direct connection with beliefs of general public.
But beside science there are unprecedented many technology advancements
in the industialized world (except those described in the article).
It is a benefit from the religion decline.
The second your statement is questionable.
We have better communications and mass media nowadays, hence the information
about murder/suicide is spread more quickly.
There is a lack of a detailed historic information to compare with past centuries.
Please, hasitate a bit longer to blame. Not only the religion, but also a decline in it.
It is a spirit of a science to delay the conclusions until all
major factors are regarded, and all arguments are checked for logical consistensy.
True, it did not invent the A-bomb. Rather it invented the Sharia laws to suppress women, the Inquisition to smoke out Heretics, the Catholic Church's ban on contraception etc etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes i was brought up a god fearing man, but i gave up on the church number one reason because they are the most greety and corupt organtzation. And from what i was taught man can change the future.It is written that way and with out sicence we sill be throwing stones at eachother. We are over a 1,000 plus many year's behind science, think about it the GREEKS had the concept of steam power and other things that were destoyed by the ROMANS. thats just one small part in time if left alone would have changed the world .. we didn't restart steam power til the middle 1800's. look were we are at today because of steempower. we were so aginst science back then the church would burn you at the stake. I'am still a god fearing man i don't go to church. But i always needed to know were we came from and how are science has gone to space to look for some other species my be out there? But befor we go to far we must fix earth first or we won't be aroundto see a plant like our's.. PS idont preach god thats whats in my thoughts after being here for 50 years
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes i was brought up a god fearing man, but i gave up on the church number one reason because they are the most greety and corupt organtzation. And from what i was taught man can change the future.It is written that way and with out sicence we sill be throwing stones at eachother. We are over a 1,000 plus many year's behind science, think about it the GREEKS had the concept of steam power and other things that were destoyed by the ROMANS. thats just one small part in time if left alone would have changed the world .. we didn't restart steam power til the middle 1800's. look were we are at today because of steempower. we were so aginst science back then the church would burn you at the stake. I'am still a god fearing man i don't go to church. But i always needed to know were we came from and how are science has gone to space to look for some other species my be out there? But befor we go to far we must fix earth first or we won't be aroundto see a plant like our's.. PS idont preach god thats whats in my thoughts after being here for 50 years
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow you know quite well that thes Biblical standards do not apply today. We do not take "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". The development of our civilization has moved on since the times when these Biblical rules were needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMen fight and kill for the same reason dogs and bulls do: testosterone. You science people are as thick as anyone on earth. If you think you can appear "smart" by telling us you lack the imagination to form some idea of a God, then you are just proving your limitations and are not far removed from the dogs etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligious wars have killed far more people than the atomic bomb. Religious armies do not not hesitate to use science to find ever better ways of killing. All in the name of God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I weren't so skeptical of Man's contribution to climate change I would find the disclosure of the ClimateGate documents to be particularly disappointing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's see what "science" has become: fudging the data, losing the raw data, foiling FOIA requests, perverting the peer-review process, and the general denigration and ruination of anyone who is an apostate to the Dogma of The Church of Gore.
Now THAT is a religion that will do real harm to people all around the world: enriching a small elite (led by Al Gore) through the selling of indulgences in the form of carbon credits, top-down command-and-control economies impoverishing the Developed World, keeping the Third World in abject poverty and squalor lest the commit the "sins" of the Developed World, unelected world governance, the list goes on and on.
Yup! Religion can kill. But usually it's the secular religions that are truly murderous.
A simple cell is fantastically complicated. Anyone with experience trying to make something work in real life with even modest complexity will conclude that an accidental process that has no purpose in mind CANNOT create. Even long periods of time cannot make something that is impossible possible. If you think "We are here there is no way other than evolution." take a hard look at your starting assumptions. Design is so obvious that descriptions of cells and functions have to use design terminology and purpose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Rick_U, I see you have kept to the theist tradition of lying to get your point across. I guess if your beliefs are based on an imaginary man why not back them up with imaginary data?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Regardless of how one answers that, most agree…" whether they agree or not, most Americans are clueless. Evidence is all that matters, not the opinion of an embarrassingly scientifically illiterate population.
* Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun.
* Only 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time.
* Only 47% of adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth's surface that is covered with water.
* Only 21% of adults answered all three questions correctly.
"increased murder/suicide rates," Contrary to your theist propaganda we are currently living in one of the most peaceful times in human history. To me it is no surprise that it is also the most secular. http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2007_03_19_New%20Republic.pdf
"an increasing rich/poor divide", The numbers I have seen show the greatest increase in the gap during the christian supported Bush administration.
"decreased civility, and increased apathy" do you have some numbers to support those claims? I don't totally disagree as it has been shown that the larger the city in which people live the less likely they are to help strangers and there has been a shift of populations away from rural areas towards cities. I don't know if that means urban people are more apathetic then rural people or if that means we can all tolerate about a couple hundred people before we become oversaturated. Once again, I'd like to see the evidence for this claim.
"One telling sign is the increased litigiousness and reluctance to compromise." what is the link between the decrease of religion and increase of litigiousness? The US is the most litigious country in the world and it is also the most Christian (please note that I mean they claim to be christian, their actions certainly don't support the claim). It has also refused to sign more international treaties than any other western nation.
Theists like to imagine that they make the world a better place just by being christian. The numbers don't seem to agree. The most christian countries seem to have the least christian social policies. As I have shown, not only is religion not the source of morality, in fact it provides the authority to act amorally with impunity. It seems to be no different today than it was during the dark ages
The problem isn't in the ideologies or the "dangers of Science" - the problem is in human irrationality which inevitably leads to the misuse of both religions and Science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligions don't require rationality, they only require ignorance in the presence of "good story telling" to exist and prosper. Science requires both rationality and a conscience based on what is best for our species.
Stalin and Pol Pot and Hitler: all were irrational and arguably homicidal psychopaths. That they misused Science and technology to kill millions does not at all speak to the value and necessity of these things.
Religions are different in that they require uncritical suspension of disbelief and suppress critical thinkers. They require mythic motivators to persuade people to abandon the prime functions of their own brains. From there: "anything goes." So naturally we see "good" and "bad" results from religions but there is no control over which direction a given religion will take.
Science may some day find indications of a real God. The same can't be said of religions because they fear and loath the Scientific Method. All religions do is make assertions about God - without providing or even looking for valid proofs.
Now, which of these two do we want to practice: Science or Religion?
Well said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther proof, we only need another generation for the dinosaurs among us to die out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen evolution won't be a problem for most.
Fabrice LOTY wrote: "The Promised Land did become a better place for the Israelites, the mixed crowd following them from Egypt and the Canaanites of the repentant city of Gibeon. No more human sacrifices, bloodsheds and gross immorality. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm, archeologists and historians specializing in the era also state that the wandering tribes practiced genocidal warfare: they wiped out the entire populations of every city in Canaan. So I guess you're right: Canaan might have been a "better place" if its human population was wiped out "under the sword."
Also worth mentioning: a quick read of the Old Testament clearly reveals the repetition of a single moral lesson: Straighten up or God will hand you a big can of Whupass.
That may be appropriate for a people whose only claim to civilization was as guest slaves to Babylon, Egypt and finally Rome.
Finally, look again at the tales in the Old Testament and what you see are point-for-point correlations with the moralist myths of Babylon and Egypt. All of these are borrowed morals but both Christians and Jews have long claimed them as their own.
The New Testament: again historians and archeologists say this collection of apocrypha told by a few men able to write at the time tell of not one man but (odds are) of several messianic cult leaders of Jesus' time. Jesus is therefore a convenient composite figure who was used to build a following for a splinter group in Jewish society.
The Old Testament was used to keep the original Israelite tribes in line and the New Testament became (over a period of three centuries of reworking) a recruiting poster for people of the Eastern Mediterranean. And those people had "scientific knowledge" which amounted to less than what is contained in one edition of today's daily newspapers.
So if you want to call the Bible a "decent" version of what really happened, you should also caution that the Bible is not "Holy" at all but a moralist tome composed of borrowed myth and politically motivated editing.
Today we have all the sciences (fields of verifiable research) to give us morals and rationality. We scientifically know that incest is "bad" and that promiscuous sex is "bad" - for human individuals and the entire species. Even the "horrors of high tech warfare" prove that "we don't want to go there" for RATIONAL human individuals and societies.
There is not A SINGLE example of "moral advantage" in the Bible touted by uncritical believers which cannot be arrived at IN BETTER FASHION by scientific study.
If you think that Santa Claus stories are cute and the Easter Bunny also, consider that one's little child's brain is processing this as fact and the neurons develop patterns that process this permanently so that eventually with a few small changes, one ends up with Santa Claus turning into any kind of religious belief and faith that you want it to be. It is dangerous in other words to lie to your kids about the real world. Having never the misfortune of such nonsense I was absolutely an atheist at age 5 to the outrage of my grandmother who saw me as corrupted by my parents! I can only thank them from the bottom of my heart for keeping my mind open to facts and not faith based illogic. Evolution, well of course...it is as clear as one's nose and for those that want to live in the fairytale world of Santa Claus and Creationism, just stay the heck away from education, logic, government and other institutions...and away from your poor kids who will have their minds altered forever by your childish vision of the world. You truly prove that primate behaviour is alive and well and living next door.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe one of the great inhibitors that infiltrates many of our scientific disappointments, is the lack of control we have on our extremely face paced social evolution. We simply have so much going on in the global sphere, it seems difficult to focus and use our tools for any advancement or improvement, in my mind, to great effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDenise McTighe
Here are my comments about the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Evolution is still the intelligent design of all species. And the most tested theory regarding development. I am not disappointed.
2. Cancer is still around, but there are more survivors than ever. PROGRESS!!
3. Electric cars are for fools who do not realize what we make electricity from.
4. The human brain is the most complex item that we are aware of. We will never be able to fully understand it.
5. Now that we know the realities of how immense our universe is, it is not surprising that ET has not arrived yet. Mr. Einstein said 100 years ago that we would never achieve light speed.
6. Finding a common ancestor with the apes is a quest that exists only to convince the religious. Ardi is awesome and is enough for me!
7. Of course our climate is changing! Duh... We need to learn more before we know how much our activity is affecting it.
8. HIV and AIDS are not relevant to the ordinary population.
9. I'm off the grid, so I don't care (solar, wind and geothermal, plus gravity irrigation).
10. The incredible intelligence behind our increasing knowledge of our universe continues to be the highest accomplishment of our species.
Thank you to the world of science for making the last decade the best ever. Pessimists can suck it!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is that "religion " has been around ever since shadows scared us on the cave walls ; and that science has really only seen a change of mindset leading to an understanding of the truth for the last 250 years.
The promise of eternal life if one only accepts and believes compared to a once and for all existence is too much of a contrast to give up a belief system based on superstition where man creates the "truth" through a myriad of religions and passes this on to the next generation.
In the end TRUTH will win out but it may take a few generations yet!!
as for space exploration, i think when the USSR fell in 1991, the momentum for 'whose first' was lost..its just one of the more regrettable moments in history, a rivalry between two superpowers especially in space exploration. its as simple as a business competition, where there is no competition, there is not enough innovation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas for space exploration, i think that since the demise of the Soviets, the competition for 'whose first' was lost. its always healthy to have competition in any field, and now that the superpower is lost, the need to 'beat out' the other side was lost. i could only imagine the progress of space exploration if the USSR is still alive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"1. Evolution is still the intelligent design of all species. And the most tested theory regarding development. I am not disappointed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is not intelligent, it is not goal oriented and does not act with purpose. It is one of the most tested theories though.
"3. Electric cars are for fools who do not realize what we make electricity from."
Not all electricity comes from a coal burning power plants. We need electric cars and green energy sources such as wind, hydro and solar to power them.
"6. Finding a common ancestor with the apes is a quest that exists only to convince the religious."
Personally I don't think anthropologists care one way or another what religiously minded people think, they just want to know as much about our origins as possible.
"7. Of course our climate is changing! Duh... We need to learn more before we know how much our activity is affecting it."
Sure, but at the same time it would be foolish to not implement programs aimed at reducing pollution and the depletion of our natural resources.
"8. HIV and AIDS are not relevant to the ordinary population."
I don't even know what that means. Who is the non-ordinary population? Homosexuals, Africans?
"9. I'm off the grid, so I don't care (solar, wind and geothermal, plus gravity irrigation)."
If you are off the grid then why do you think electric cars are for fools seeing as you have the means to generate clean electricity to run it? Am I missing something?
Natedog...Just like most of the commentators on this thread, you only seek to criticise others. My metaphor on evolution is obviously above your intelligence level. Do you know how much electricity is NOT produced with carbon based energy? I obviously don't need to appease mythology believers. Are you saying that we DON'T need to learn more about climate change? The ordinary population with regards to the point are those who are not at risk of getting AIDS...99.99% of us. I use a diesel generator to power my welder and other high energy needs. Most of my ordinary needs are low voltage. Using the generator to charge an electric vehicle would be stupid. By the way, the point was about the GRID. People like YOU need the grid. You are correct...you are missing a lot. Why no smartass comment about increasing numbers of cancer survivors? Stay in the ghetto, Natedog, and collect your unemployment check and food stamps. You wouldn't last a week out here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI won't waste my time reading comments anymore. There's nothing to learn from most of you. RIP notslic and The Dude.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many so-called religious groups throughout the world,all but one are a farce.I personally think if the Bible scriptures were taught as they are written and not as some would interpret them...anyway it's not religion that starts wars it's men/woman, mostly men.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor anyone to mock Jesus Christ whether he was real or a mythological person is illogical for basically what he's saying is do unto others as you would have them do unto you and of course freedom to choose,that is why Darwin's theory is there.
None can or will be catagorically proved universally.
Just imagine had people lived by the word of God and not their own bigoted interpretation of it,no evil in any shape or form,yes we would be further on than we are today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for evolution..is it say like an animal hanging around the fringes of the artic circle that wants desperately to venture into the snowy wastes yet would surely die if it did,but because it hung around the fringes for a few million years it miraculously changes into another animal endowed with all the skill and instinct necessary to survive the hazardous conditions.
This transformtion happened not once,but hundreds even thousands of times all at the same time...and you ridicule people who believe in a God.
I find it amusing that you have both the difficulty in teaching Evolution vs Creationism as well as having listed the recent discoveries turning Paleontology on it's ear...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason many don't believe is because it is incomplete. The missing link is still missing! What occurred in our history that caused us to suddenly jump from caves into Renaissance and then to the Moon in a few hundred years?yyyyYYY
Hey folks, the point is that people kill people whether for religious or political reasons. Religion has been used as an excuse and technology as a means but at the end of the day, it is a struggle for power and greed regardless of whether you are a Scientist or a Pope! Religions don't kill people, and guns and bombs don't kill people - PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomething happened to mankind that made us much more intelligent and creative. Think about the last 400 years of our history compared to the last 40,000 years! Whether that is the influence of some creator or not is up for speculation but i do not think we can just ignore these facts the way current evolution science does!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI expect that both Creation and Evolution are true. here is just too much unknown about both to actually link the two historically. If you get a copy of the Book of Jasher which was the original account of the Jews before Moses re-wrote everything to his advantage, you will find a very different account of creation. An account that supports dinosaurs!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe United States of America should be deeply ashamed of themselves when it is known that only a fourth of the population accepts evolution. My conviction of the greatness of your country has been demolished.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes there certainly is a connection between evolution and religion- religion has evolved over time with the exploitation of the weak and ignorant by the powerful religious leaders as its motivation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis doesn't prove the former but certainly characterises the latter.
Yes there certainly is a connection between evolution and religion- religion has evolved over time with the exploitation of the weak and ignorant by the powerful religious leaders as its motivation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis doesn't prove the former but certainly characterises the latter.
The Crusades and the Inquisition killed many , that is true, but it was so called Social Science that lead to WWI, WWII and the Cold War? One "ISM" or another between Stalin, Hitler, Mao other smaller but like minded people that think they have all the answers scientifically figured out and seek to supposedly change the world for it's own good. The Great Social Experiments are the real death and murder winners in history. So let's not tout experiments as the holy grail unless they are also tempered with morality, humanity and some sort of social responsibility! Things we normally and traditionally get from reasonable and rational religions...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the real world the truth is almost always stranger than fiction. We fight over religion and science as though they were somehow different. In fact Science is evolved from religion and previously stated and even Einstein did not discount meta-physics or ridicule religion. So many things about our own existence are mystery to us.
It is easy to pick apart one religion or another but remember that religions are also evolving and becoming more about concepts not yet proven by science. Regardless of your beliefs both sides must admit that they do not have all the answers. Nobody does... In that light we shouldn't teach Creation OR Evolution as being our factual beginning because neither group can completely prove its case and as stated by others in this wonderful debate, we shouldn't lie to our kids...
Obviously evolution and mutation exists! But the Order of things above that is NOT know NOR can religious faiths be adequately demonstrated as truth.
The truth almost always lies somewhere between the extremes. That is the real missing link both parties should be pursuing. Religions should seek to reconcile Science and Science should seek to reconcile Spiritual phenomenons which are largely responsible for people's lack of acceptance of Science as a Religion...
I'm sorry. Who actually DOES that? I've been raised in a conservative, protestant Christian home. Most people I know were raised Christian. I know of no one who has actually been told as a child that they must act a certain way or they're going to hell. If they did, they had nothing to do with the faith I know. If you know anything about Christianity, you'll know that it's all about the fact that we all mess up and do stupid, sinful things, but God gracefully forgives those things through Jesus Christ's sacrifice. It's not about how you act, it's about who you run to when you do screw up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the creationism vs. evolution stuff, here's some food for thought... why can't they both coexist? Why can't God be the catalyst for evolution? Genesis 1 says that God made everything, but it doesn't clearly specify the processes that took place when He did.
Atheism is a belief. The institutions of belief use the word justify. That is a very bad word indeed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElectric cars may be alright in cities where people only need to travel a few miles in fulfilling daily routines such as shopping,taking children to and from school (if the car is big enough).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the real world though they will be second cars for those who can afford them.Most of their time will be hooked up to the national grid(owners fearing they break down)which will exhaust supply and put up prices or increase indirect taxes to cover their use.
What concerns me is the rise in fuel prices that government and suppliers will invoke to cover loss of revenue/profits.This will cause motorists to cut back(as it does now)even further or make owning a car to expensive,this will have an obvious knock on effect.
What is an even more worrying concern is the tranportation of goods.Everything that is eaten/used (UK) is delivered by lorries (trucks) economically and quickly,there is no other mode of transport (trains,boats,planes) can or will ever compete.
The price of fuel will rocket,forcing price rises right across the chain including wage increase demands which are unlikely to be met.As with today's recession people will cut back further in shopping for non-essential products.
Shops will close unemployment will rise government/council revenue/rates will drop,more job loses,more tax increases.
The electric car will have a negative affect on every mode of transport in use today.This is a huge backward step for mankind,we must reject electric vehicles at all costs,lest we find ourselves in the biggest recession and ultimately depression we may never recover from.
i built a better brain for myself fifteen years ago i fuel injected it with amphetimines and it was the ultimate hot rod but i didnt realize the government owned my mind and could stop me runing what worked best for me now the have police psuedo watch in chemists as the social engineers fear that more people out there thinking for themselves is the biggest theat to their opulent lifestyle that they face so now i spend most of my life as a mental cripple ploting to kill my masters that want me to be as pathetic as them in government that lack all ambision other than control regards the motorcycle messiah junkies against crime
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe difficulty with the apparent differences between "science" (believing something because we have "proven" it using the "best available tools") and religion (believing in something "by faith alone" and questionable "proof") isn't that one is "real" and "true" and the other isn't. Science itself admits that "proof" can change as new tools and discoveries become available. Though religious beliefs don't seem to change much over time and presently certain beliefs can't (yet?) be proven and some seem to fly in the face of "empiric evidence", it does NOT mean that there is no basis for these beliefs. I think a lot of the problem is that most people firmly hold to one concept over the other and refuse to think that perhaps both are "true". I personally believe in a "super being" (which I acknowledge as "God") but also generally accept most scientific "evidence". I reconcile the differences in people's stubbornness and religious leaders clinging to stories that are probably either based on concepts of the known world/science/history of thousands of years ago with subsequent changes during that time span. It IS amazing how little the written records have changed which really only points to how important these writings are to the adherents of these faiths. As to "shoving" my beliefs "down my children's throats", I submit that WE all impart our belief systems to our children because we believe they are important. I've let my children make their own decisions by letting them know that there are many alternative ways of viewing our existence here. I did let them know that my personal belief is that nothing is by accident but I don't really subscribe to any particular religion (yet, I do consider myself Christian for a reason--but that's a different topic) just that I believe in a being most call "God" that is presently beyond our understanding but IS the creator of all things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe premise of the title is wrong. The millenium did not start until 2001.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I thought this was a SCIENCE website! LOL!!
Terry Thomas
Professional Photographer
Atlanta, Georgia USA
You don't know the average 10 to 15 year old girl or boy, "bigmattie," if you think parents are capable of brainwashing their children, (other than the relatively few cultists who isolate them completely from society), you haven't met many of these children, or you're being misled by the external facade they put on so as not to piss of their parents. Growing up, my male friends and I have had enough romantic encounters with the offspring of deeply religious parents to know that the kind of brainwashing you describe is nearly impossible except for a passive few who would seek out someone to tell them how to think anyhow. Their brothers were no less predatory than we were.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI googled the Martin jetpack. That is one amazing machine. Why hasn't the public heard of it yet? I watched the video and it does look like something law enforcement could use, but also anyone else who could afford the pricetag.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you can see by all these threads, religion is different to any and all who believe. How it fits into a scientific discusssion, though, is still a mystery to me. Why can't you believe in both creationism and evolution if you know the meaning of both words?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou forgot to include one of the greatest killers of modern times, adolf hitler, who, by some estimates, was directly responsible for 40 to 100 million deaths and, we should note, sanctified his acts by referring to god. Yes, he was religious, but not at all ethical. I think hitler and his religion based pogroms wins, hands down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote also, that our two atomic bombs were invented by scientists but their use was approved by a religious man.
Religion Vs Atheism is a mirrored argument designed to keep oblivious caged parrots busy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople do good and bad things to others whether religion lives within them or not! - Those who desire power above all else will naturally use the best available tools to achieve their goals. Up until fairly recently religion has been by far the best tool to use, but these days any belief, business / politics, and of course the latest trend, media fuelled fear, are all freely available to those who would consider their use.
Religion Vs Atheism is a mirrored argument designed to keep oblivious caged parrots busy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople do good and bad things to others whether religion lives within them or not! - Those who desire power above all else will naturally use the best available tools to achieve their goals. Up until fairly recently religion has been by far the best tool to use, but these days any belief, business / politics, and of course the latest trend, media fuelled fear, are all freely available to those who would consider their use.
It would seem neither science, religion or anything else will realty guarantee decent behavior (or nonviolent, or desirable by any measure) other then a direct effort of goodwill. People may act callously in the name of either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAntagonistic, polarized discussions are quite tiresome and bickerish, really& Should not the discussion here be among people who would like to ponder as to why have the fields in topic progressed so slowly?
For instance, it would seem one very real reason progress in space and other lofty fields has been slow is that we are always bogged down by down-to-earth troubles such as wars and crises; we clearly must build a viable world down here first, before we can afford to skedaddle around the galaxy.
Perhaps the social sciences, and their findings, should be applied as thoroughly as the exact/hard sciences are, and just as enthusiastically by governments, to actively pursue universal well-being. Universal assurance of the basic physical rights and the elimination of extreme poverty across the world, a strongly interactive direct democracy where state actions more closely reflected the desire of the majority, and other obvious conclusions from social science, political science and philosophy could be actively used to try to deliberately create a world that is not perfect (no such thing, ones concept of perfection also evolves as one improves) but as benign as we can possibly make it (note, this is a rational, but essentially also a moral, choice) could allow society to be free at last to pursue flying cars, Sheratons on the moon, and whatnot.
As to item number one on the articles list (Evolution Optional) on the endless bickering among science and Protestants: it may perhaps be of cold comfort to US-based science supporters that this discussion is quite entirely limited to the US, in the rest of the Western world it is not ever taken seriously (I hail from South America). Arguing with a creationist? Please& Just let them rant, and laugh. And my dear Protestants: God nowhere ordered anyone to support standards of contemporary morality by defending 3000-year-old events an untenable pursuit, at best...
I find it absolutely facinating that the topic at hand should evoke such a passionate discussion on, of all things, religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is helping to demonstrate something of which I am becoming more and more convinced, which is, that all of us believe that there is "something else", more to life than meets the eye, and those who say otherwise still find it extremely difficult to avoid the thought.
If you do not believe in a "ghosts", does it really matter to you who do? You really, should have no reason to fight and "destroy" another human being simply because they have delusions of "spirituality". I mean, come on, you are much smarter than that. To me it is so silly it is ridiculous.
Mark 5146546 started off well and was really on to something. Then like most of the rest he fell for it, he could not resist taking pot shots at those who share (religious) views different to his. In the process he started to destroy the little good he had sought to do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMark thinks the views of "creationists" are good for a laugh. Creationists believe the views of "evolutionists" are good for a laugh. Where does that leave us Mark? With two large sections of humanity laughing at one another.
And if the statistics are correct Mark will be laughing for a long time, because the protestant moving in the South just keeps on growing.
No, Mark! Laughing at other people's cherished ideas is not the answer. I am sure you would not be offended if others took your most favoured beliefs and laughed at them!
I agree with the last two posts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI cringe when I see or hear the word "theory" in relation to evolution. It is a very misunderstood word - especially when the holy rollers get ahold of it and proclaim that "evolution is only a theory". I'd rather hear "the fact of evolution" or something equally as solid used. A theory is NOT just an idea. It is a proveable, testable, confirmed fact that began as an idea and has evidence to back it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Atheism is not an organised belief." Not entirely true. My atheist brother-in-law attends an atheist socail group weekly. Is that not some level of organisation? There are also Atheist organisations out there that are promoting their beliefs. Even atheist leaders like Richard Dawkins are leaders of the atheist movement. Atheism has become "organised". ANyways, its doen't matter what your personal beliefs are to be a scientist, rather science is about a process of discovery and formulating hypothesis which are tested by the larger scientific community ( of whom many are atheist, agnostics, christians, muslims, hindi, buddhist etc...). Lets just drop this silly unscientific religion bashing its not what science is about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay I say,that as a learned scholar of the old testament you have done your home work,though,for all we know parts of the old testament may have been interpreted wrongly,or perhaps parts included by an elder of the old school.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have to look on the Old Testament as a history of life during that period.The teachings of Jesus said that all these things were done away with and the New Testament was the word of God
As for anyone harming someone in the name of God has nothing whatsoever to do with religion and we, who have an ounce of common sence know and accept this.Why aitheists continue to tar all religions the same and ignore the fact that it is man/woman who by choice commit evil.It makes no sence to commit evil in the name of Jesus Christ and even more ridiculas that anyone could believe it.
Evolution is 'Theorectical' nonsence,perpretrated by Darwin to please his sponsers,who were becoming impatient with supporting him and nothing forthcoming.Anyone in the same boat,so to speak,would on witnessing apes in the wild,form the notion that they look similar to humans and through desperation compile writings on the theory of evolution.There was no hard evidence (or any) then and none now to catagorically claim it to be true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuppose for a moment evolution were true.Why is it you tolerate the evil in society,ie murderers,child molesters, rapists, drug pedlars, you know that sort of low life that trawl
our streets and bring misery to others. Why is it you have never lobbied governments ect to have these people....sorry animals exterminated, helping to make a more happy friendly society. After all were only animals aren't we...a little refined perhaps,but animals nonetheless.
agreed, IMO religion is the limit for folks who dont/cant understand the 'theories' of astronomy/cosmology etc...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut it will forever and always be Science vs. Religion... Religion is 100% BELIEF, as for science its a split (not 50/50) between BELIEF and FACT.
I'm no physicist,but I do have a knowledge on cosmology and I am in awe of the knowlege the cosmolgists impart to me through my monthly Astronomy magazine.I have no difficulty in believeing what they are potraying as facts,or sharing their theories with me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists are at the top of my list for jobs I would have liked to have done.Cosmology/religion back each other up,if you read how the earth ect was created in the Bible,it is exactly how cosmologists think planets ect evolved,or in religious terms created.
There are scientists who attend church and religious church goers who are scientists.You say belief is all that religion is about,I would call it faith.Scientists would have us believe in dark energy,yet there is no instrument that can detect it, except how it appears to affect galaxy clusters,I have no reason to doubt them.Yet there are thousands,perhaps millions of people the world over who will swear of some sort of devine presence that has changed their lives.
I love science and I also believe in Jesus Christ,but for all knowlege science posseses it will never prove/disprove the existence of a supreme being and thats the way it will remain,to regard it as nonsence because of this...is dare I say hardly science.
Science is not only a 3D physical and chemical specter, science is part of a living world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConciousness is related to dynamics of the SOUL.
Theories can seem realistic with observations.
Darwin had no consideration of soul as being a fundamental
factor in his observations ??
and will any future science think of integrating soul, conciousness, extrasensory perception, meditation, life death and dying , etc into perceptions of WHO WE ARE , WHERE WE CAME FROM SPECIES WISE , and fundamentals of intelligence, instead of promoting ideas of we are the most intelligent species ever !!!!!!!
gracious, pride led to fall of the fools, always !!!!!!
wish you all luck
any
this comment is related to the "SPACED OUT"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskindly understand that most of the outerspace info is mixture of telescopic observation, followed by a theorizing observer
-- his obsevational thesis or theory is completely deviated to providing his personal view to gain confidence of an astronomy society, this is the followed by an artist's painting of similar picture to back this theory, end result is a theory from some past just being propounded further to endless quarters at expense of poor taxpayers
what are the fundas of outerspace expense, to know and learn or theorize ??????