Science as Religion

Robert Byers, It is illegal to teach evolution if its illegal for the state to teacgh certain religious conclusions are false. It is not "illegal for the state to teach certain religious conclusions are false." It might be unconstitutional for the state to do so in order to suppress or hinder a religion, but it may--and has always been able to--take a position contrary to any church's dogma for neutral reasons. Mapou, Seversky, it is not true that religions get tax breaks. As far as I know, they are considered non-profit charitable corporations. It is absolutely, and incredibly obviously, "true that religions get tax breaks." It's so obviously true that I suspect that what you meant is that they don't get tax breaks separately from those available to 501(c)(3) organizations. That's sort of true. Most of the tax advantages available to churches are available to other 501(c)(3)s too. One of the big differences is that churches don't need to fill out the same paperwork to apply and qualify for the exemption. I'm an executive board member of a secular 501(c)(3), and I can tell you that's a nice perk for churches. The paperwork is annoying for big organizations. I think there are other tax distinctions too, such as the parsonage exemptions, but I suspect even those could be claimed by a secular 501(c)(3) if it was creative and put a little effort into it. Learned Hand

Mapou, The Washington Post reporter says:

Ryan T. Cragun, a sociologist at the University of Tampa, and two of his students, Stephanie Yeager and Desmond Vega, took it upon themselves to figure it out. They're not exactly disinterested parties; their research appeared in Free Inquiry, a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism. But Cragun is a serious sociologist of religion and the data seems to check out.

Do you have some evidence that the WaPo reporter fell for "a bunch of lies", or are you just making that up? keith s

keith s, that report is a bunch of lies by well known anti-religionist atheists. Now somebody needs to calculate how much government spends to subsidize Darwinism in the schools and fund "scientific" research that supports Darwinism. Mapou

Mapou:

Seversky, it is not true that religions get tax breaks.

Maybe not on Planet Mapou, but here in the US they do: You give religions more than $82.5 billion a year keith s

Mapou @ 7

Seversky, it is not true that religions get tax breaks

Are you sure about that? You might want to look here

If the "parsonage exemption" on religious ministers' housing costs were revoked, American clergy members would cumulatively lose an estimated $2.3 billion over five years. [60] [...] According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. [9] New York City alone loses $627 million in annual property tax revenue due to 9,500 churches being tax-exempt, according to a July 2011 analysis by New York's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office. [10] [11]

Seversky

mapou you are right. It is illegal to teach evolution if its illegal for the state to teacgh certain religious conclusions are false. especially obvious when if same religious conclusions present themselves for inclusion in schools they are said to be breaking the law if included. The state is censoring and attacking conclusions as it desires as of right now. Its not a free country as long as this happens and its unlawful in the first place. Robert Byers

Seversky, it is not true that religions get tax breaks. As far as I know, they are considered non-profit charitable corporations. They must either give the money away or use it to pay salaries. All church employees pay their taxes just like everybody else. Darwinism, by contrasted is promoted directly by the government and used to brainwash young kids in the schools. It's the state religion and that's against the law of the land. Mapou

You mean as against all the other religions that get tax breaks worth billions because they are religions? The government doesn't have to give money to either, does it? Going back to "natural" and "supernatural", how did Casey Luskin define them? Seversky

It's all about religion. Unfortunately, one of those religions figured out a sneaky way to get free money from the government, which is against the law of the land and the ideals of a free democratic society. Mapou

What is the difference between 'natural' and 'supernatural' in this context? Seversky

OT: No junk: Long RNA mimics DNA, restrains hormone responses - Nov. 7, 2014 Excerpt: (Darwinian) Scientists used to think that much of the genome was "fly-over country": not encoding any protein and not even accessed much by the cell's gene-reading machinery. Recent studies have revealed that a large part of the genome is copied into lincRNAs (long intergenic noncoding RNAs), of which Gas5 is an example. "There are thousands of long non-coding RNAs that play critical roles in gene regulation, and little data to tell us how they are functioning or where they came from," says lead author graduate student Will Hudson. "We took a deep dive into looking at the interaction of the Gas5 RNA with steroid hormone receptors, and we think this work may serve as a model to understand how lincRNAs interact with other proteins." http://phys.org/news/2014-11-junk-rna-mimics-dna-restrains.html bornagain77

On this 'Science as Religion' topic it should be noted that, before atheists decided to redefine science to mean atheistic materialism, and condemn anyone as a heretic who did not buy into their religion, before that, science was seen as an act of worship by many of the Christian founders of modern science, for example,,,

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God.”(Newton 1687,Principia) “When I reflect on so many profoundly marvellous things that persons have grasped, sought, anddone, I recognize even more clearly that human intelligence is a work of God, and one of the mostexcellent.” (Galileo, as cited in Caputo 2000, 85). “To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power, toappreciate, in degree, the wonderful working of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing andacceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more gratifying thanknowledge.” (Copernicus, as cited in Neff 1952, 191-192; and in Hubbard 1905, v) “Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us tobe thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.” (Kepler,as cited in Morris 1982, 11; see also Graves 1996, 51). “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophybringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causesscattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” (Bacon 1875, 64). “And thus I very clearly see that the certitude and truth of all science depends on the knowledgealone of the true God, insomuch that, before I knew him, I could have no perfect knowledge of anyother thing. And now that I know him, I possess the means of acquiring a perfect knowledgerespecting innumerable matters, as well relative to God himself and other intellectual objects as to corporeal nature.” (Descartes 1901, Meditation V). “The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God.” (Faraday, as cited in Seeger 1983, 101). “I think men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think Christians whoseminds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable of.” (Maxwell, as cited in Campbell and Garnett 1882, 404-405) “Overpoweringly strong proofs of intelligentand benevolent design lie all around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific,turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to usthrough Nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler.” (Kelvin 1871; see also Seeger 1985a, 100-101) “When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets, when withexcellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature’s curious workmanship; and when,in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chemical furnaces, I study the book of nature, I find myself often times reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, ‘How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all!’ ” (Boyle, as cited in Woodall 1997, 32) “The examination of the bodies of animals has always been my delight, and I have thought that we might thence not only obtain an insight into the lighter mysteries of nature, but there perceive a kind of image or reflection of the omnipotent Creator Himself.” (Harvey, as cited in Keynes 1966, 330) “There is for a free man no occupation more worth and delightful than to contemplate the beauteous works of nature and honor the infinite wisdom and goodness of God.” (Ray, as cited in Graves 1996, 66; see also Yahya 2002) “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God.” (Pasteur, as cited in Lamont 1995; see also Tiner 1990, 75) https://www.academia.edu/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal

Verse and Music:

Psalm 150:6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD. Praise the LORD. Casting Crowns - Praise you in this storm - live https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjZBZv_771o

bornagain77

I have, more than once, been told when I have pointed to the jaw dropping complexity in molecular biology and the abject failure of unguided Darwinian processes to account for that jaw dropping complexity, that it was 'not science' to think that such jaw dropping complexity could be the result of a Designer.,,, Which, when I first encountered that statement, thought it was the just about the most ludicrous thing I had ever heard. My initial sentiment towards that 'not science' belief has not changed. It turns out that materialists have tried to highjack 'science' with the imposition, before investigation even begins, with what is termed methodological naturalism. i.e. only 'natural' causes may be considered valid and 'supernatural' causes need not apply. The trouble with methodological naturalism is that it rules 'mind' out prior to investigation since mind is supposedly not 'natural' for the materialists. And with the outlawing of one's own mind from science, then the entire enterprise of science winds up in epistemological failure, (Boltzmann’s Brain; Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism). Moreover, I had certainly never heard such an artificial limitation being placed on science, as we have we methodological naturalism, prior to meeting hard core Darwinists on the internet, despite working in science related fields all my life. As well, I am sure the Christian founders of modern science, who thought they could 'do science' in the first place because they were made in God's image, would all be shocked to learn how atheists have abused the baby they gave birth to. ============= A Heavyweight Look at the Negative Impact of Modern and Postmodern Philosophies - Casey Luskin April 22, 2014 Excerpt: "Not only divine Scripture, but also sound reason teaches us that we must look with amazement on the machine of the universe produced and created by the hand of the infinite Artist. ... Neither art, nor genius, can even imitate a single fibre of the endless tissues that make up each body. The smallest filament, in fact, shows the Finger of God and the Artist's signature." (p. 120) Carl Linneaus, inventor of our modern system of biological classification (Paul Gosselin, Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West) Gosselin observes that "we have discovered further levels of complexity that Linneaus, or even Darwin, could not have imagined." (p. 121) He concludes: "Before the twentieth-century, this symbiotic relationship between science and Christianity was the norm, but since then the Enlightenment and modern propaganda have 'buried' it, keeping such facts out of view." (p. 122) According to Gosselin, this is just another way that modernist philosophy has engaged in a form of intellectual fracking, trying to destroy the theological, philosophical, and other intellectual foundations that built the West. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/flight_from_the084581.html bornagain77