«

»

Oct 25 2009

Your Religion Is Not Science!

I get so utterly sick of living on a planet inhabited by hordes of ignorant religious creationist fucktwits. It would be so much more tolerable if they would keep their bullshit within their churches, among the faithful. Instead, they feel compelled by the words of their fucktwit leaders to proselytize the hell out of anyone who has the capability to hear their message combined with the apparent inability to tell them to piss up a fucking rope.

But what, specifically, has set me off this time? Today it is creationists [I have to stop myself from typing ‘cretins’ every single time] who want to pass off their religion as science. Don’t even get started with the ‘intelligent design’ bullshit either. It’s creationism. It’s religious in nature. It’s from your fucking bible. Don’t try to slap a new name on it in a feeble attempt to make it sound more scientific (and to lose the baggage that your holy book carries with it).

I hear a resounding, “Waaaaaaa!!! You’re just picking on Christians!” I don’t see reams of verbiage from Muslims touting their holy book as the source of all knowledge about the Universe. On the contrary, the Islamic nations have provided the world with innumerable scientists, and great bodies of scientific knowledge. Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham (965 – c. 1039c.e.), a great Muslim scientist, provided future scientists with what would become the scientific method. Of course, most creationists would probably hold him in low esteem, as he was not a Christian. Also, consider the fact that I live in the United States. The Muslims here do not try to force public schools to teach their religious dogma as science. Around here, the Christians do that. Those Christians who oppose that sort of thing are my friends. I respect them. Those Christians who support that sort of thing are considered, by me, to be deluded fools (at best) or (more likely) hypocritical liars. I have no respect for them or their religion.

You Have Not Disproven Evolution

If you really, honestly, have the cojones to state as a fact that you have disproven evolutionary theory, you are at the least suffering from something akin to delusions of grandeur. Are you a biologist? Have your studies shown that the evidence supports your theory in a more substantial way than for evolutionary theory? Have you published your results in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal? If you answered ‘no’ to any of these questions, then you should probably just shut the fuck up unless you truly relish the idea of rational people laughing their asses off at your ignorance when they read your statements.

Please keep in mind that disproving any portions of the current theory of evolution does not in any way validate your creationist bullshit. It’s still bullshit until you come up with the evidence, the analysis, and the publication. The fact that something has been published on the Discovery Institute’s web site does not mean that it has anything to do with real science. The fuckwits there wouldn’t know the scientific method if it bit them on the ass.

Evolutionary theory is not written in stone, unlike your creation stories. Evolutionary theory is supported by evidence and the analysis of that evidence. If new evidence is found, or new methods of analysis are found, which indicate a flaw in a part of the theory, the theory is adjusted in order to fit the new evidence or analysis. That’s how science works. I know your religion doesn’t work that way, so it might be really, really difficult for you to get the concept through your thick fucking skull, but please try to comprehend it just a little bit.

Your Bible Is Not Evidence

Do not trot out your holy book to try and pass off anything about it as science. The first book of the Christian bible, Genesis, is not evidence of the creation of the Universe by your god. It proves nothing, provides no evidence, and predicts nothing about the nature of the Universe as we know it.

The gospels were not written during the lifetime of your Jesus. They are not eyewitness testimony to anything. At most, they are hearsay. To be honest with you, they most likely originate from only two documents in the first place. If your Jesus did exist at all, he, in all likelihood, had nothing at all to do with what has become the Christian Church. That was primarily the job of Saul of Tarsus. But I digress.

Your Religion Does Not Increase Our Knowledge

Neither your religion nor your holy book has done anything to further humankind’s knowledge about the Universe and how it works. That’s not what they’re meant to do. That would be the job of science. Your religion’s job is to deal with its own internal consistency in whatever way it sees fit. It’s there to provide rules for you to live by, because your limited brain capacity won’t allow you to actually be a nice person unless you’re threatened with eternal torment. It’s there to provide some irrelevant sense that your life will continue after it’s been snuffed out, and that your magic sky-fairy will make sure you and your brethren have a nice place to dwell after you’re actually dead. The rest of us don’t really give a shit, as long as you keep it in your home and your church. It doesn’t belong in a science class.

Don’t be completely disheartened, however. I am always open to new evidence, and new interpretation of evidence. Bring me evidence that your religion has cured cancer. Bring me evidence that your religion has has given us information about the Higgs boson. Bring me evidence that your holy book predicts the Schwarzchild radius of a black hole of 12 solar masses. I could still change my mind.

5 comments

3 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. zdenny

    Dan, science is suppose to describe reality. God’s existence would be a part of that reality so you can not automatically dismiss the idea simply because you don’t know. You have to be open to a demonstration of facts that are consistent with the existence of a mind. If you are not open to that, then you are not really wedded to science; rather, you are wedded to the same dogma that you condemn in your post.

    If Darwinian evolution had been demonstrated, the debate would be over; however, Darwinians by their own admission admit that they are unable to create new functions in the Genome without intelligence. All efforts to demonstrate their theories are falling flat and as Lenski said are “counterintuitive!”

    In fact, i think you would want there God to exist. God’s existence would mean that mind rather than matter is ultimate in this world. If this is the case, then eternal life with God becomes a possibility and the reality of love is made possible too!

    I will never understand why Atheist get upset even when they disagree with people who have a reason for hope in this world. Science has already demonstrated that the universe is dying and that everything we know will eventually disappear due to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics! I guess some people just like going over the cliff without looking down to see how far the drop is…

    God Bless,

  2. Dan J

    Dan, science is suppose to describe reality. God’s existence would be a part of that reality so you can not automatically dismiss the idea simply because you don’t know. You have to be open to a demonstration of facts that are consistent with the existence of a mind.

    Science helps us to understand the nature of reality. If there is or was a god or gods, they would be a part of that reality, and would leave or provide evidence of their existence. Said evidence has not been presented. For those who do not already presuppose the existence of a deity, this means that we have no reason to believe that a god or gods has ever existed.

    If Darwinian evolution had been demonstrated, the debate would be over; however, Darwinians by their own admission admit that they are unable to create new functions in the Genome without intelligence.

    Evolution is accepted as fact by scientists who actually have knowledge about the subject. The debate is not over because of dogmatists like yourself. You can pull out the “I know you are but what am I” bullshit all fucking day and say that I am the one who is dogmatic, but the rest of us don’t buy it, Denny. You’re misrepresenting the facts over and over again. This makes you a fucking liar.

    Let me say that again: You’re misrepresenting the facts over and over again. This makes you a fucking liar.

  3. Dan J

    I’ll continue a bit more now. ZDENNY said:

    In fact, i think you would want there God to exist. God’s existence would mean that mind rather than matter is ultimate in this world. If this is the case, then eternal life with God becomes a possibility and the reality of love is made possible too!

    What I want or don’t want has nothing to do with the existence of anything. If I really wanted chocolate ice cream clouds to exist, would that make it more likely? No. If I really wanted Tinkerbell to be real, would that make it more likely? No.

    Your continued insistence that love is somehow not ‘real’ for people who do not believe in your god is getting rather tiresome. It makes no sense, and goes a long way toward making you sound even more like a self-important asshole.

  4. zdenny

    I guess I would need you to point to a demonstration of Darwinian evolution if you think it is over. It has never been demonstrated and there a still a ton of scientist out there who disagree.

    The only evidence is circumstantial and is based on common characteristics which in fact evidence for a common designer. More proof is needed than common characteristics. It will have to be empirically verified.

    1. Dan J

      Denny, the evidence for common descent has been around for years. It has been accepted by the scientific community. That is why the Theory of Evolution is regarded as fact by the scientific community.

      Creationists, who base their dogmatic belief in the creation of the Universe by their god, have always refused to accept this evidence, because to do so would be to admit that they have been wrong.

      There is evidence from genetics. The simplest, yet also probably the most powerful, genetic evidence is from phylogenetic reconstruction. For more information, see the report “Algebraic Geometers See Ideal Approach to Biology” (PDF file) by Barry A. Cipra, as published in SIAM News, Volume 40, Number 6, July/August 2007.

      There is evidence from paleontology. This evidence includes the transitional fossils that creationists are always shouting for science to show them. Interestingly, the creationists always refuse to accept this evidence, because to do so would be to admit that they have been wrong. We have a more complete picture of the modern horse’s evolutionary lineage than we do of any other animal. See “Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years” for more information.

      The evidence is there, but some people refuse to accept it. This is not to say that all creationists refuse to accept the fact of evolution. “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. One quote from this essay stands out for me, and should be taken to heart by all who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible:

      “Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. …the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.”

  1. Tweets that mention Your Religion Is Not Science! | Relatively Unrelated -- Topsy.com

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mike Haubrich, Jason Thibeault. Jason Thibeault said: RT @RelUnrelated Your Religion Is Not Science! http://retwt.me/1s7vQ || If only I'd known this post was up before I put together my RCimT. […]

  2. zdenny » Blog Archive » Supreme Denial

    […] Blog:http://www.relativelyunrelated.com/2009/your-religion-is-not-science/1042/ Warning: Dan’s Blog is not suitable for children containing violent language. Photo: […]

  3. uberVU - social comments

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by RelUnrelated: New Relatively Unrelated Post: Your Religion Is Not Science! http://retwt.me/1s7vQ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Private