I found this article in the religion interest. I thought it was a joke
This writer is a complete idiot, and this article should be under fairy tales, not science.
Can't tell if religious, science-hater
[Fry's face here]
Or just stupid.
Obviously this article has confused many, making it a bad article. His points could have been more concise and understandable.
The main point of science is to explain and understand the world in testable and perceivable ways. Things such as fairies and gods have no way of being tested and perceived. Theories are not theories without all the experiments and data. Faith requires no hard evidence. Physical proof, evidence and testable theories, that's science.
A pretty neutral look at things. I like the way this guy thinks.
Wow, some people really can't read between the lines. Well-written piece.
Bravo. Well told.
It's a theory, but this has bullshitfactor +100 once "intelligent" design and bible quotes come into play.
The stupid, it burns...
I thoroughly enjoyed this article. It has certainly incited quite a zealous response from many readers.
I'd like to address the issue of atheism being defined as a religion. I agree that that categorization is a stretch. However, I think that many people are a bit confused on some definitions here.
Not every person who does not subscribe to a religion is an atheist. An atheist is someone who believes in the complete lack of any deity. There are plenty on non-religious people who are agnostic (believe that we can never ascertain the existence or non-existence of a deity) or apatheistic (do not concern themselves with the existence or non-existence of a deity). The apatheistic people of the world certainly do not require faith in their beliefs, as they are defined by their lack of faith.
True atheists, however, are truly defined by their faith that there is no deity. I don't know who your philosophy and mathematics teachers were, but logic does not lead to the conclusion that there is no God. A bias toward the non-existence of a deity applied to the observation of the natural order leads to the conclusion that there is no God.
Yes, belief in a Creator, a God, a deity, is not a scientific matter. But the scientific method has never proved the non-existence of the same. As long as it continues to fail to bring evidence that there is no deity, then scientists of all faiths can continue their work without their faith challenged. Logic tells us that if the existence of a deity has not been disproven, then it is still possible.
Why do so many atheists feel the need to express their fervor for the non-existence of a deity in the guise of science and logic? I believe that you have a right to believe that there is no God. I disagree with your conclusion, but it is your right to come to your own. And I believe that I am not an ignorant idiot for believing in the scientific method, and a God who created the universe. Why do you feel the need to mock me for coming to my own conclusion?
This piece destroys its man of straw, but carefully worded sentences implying electrons are an article of faith doesn't validate Christianity as science.
Why do we believe in electrons, but not in fairies?
Well electrons can be used in calculations to come to useful conclusions, faries can't.
I'm callin' Poe's Law.
Atheism is not a religion, and Intelligent design is NOT a theory. It is ironic that this piece is about the scientific method but still recognises something that starts with a conclusion as theory.
Had a resounding thumbs up from me until he went into a tangent about atheism. People actually are using scientific method to demonstrate the creation of humans as nothing more than biological chance. Course this was written six years ago and could probably do with a little updating.
Fascinating all the sheep that are badmouthing or thumbs downing this article because it challenges their way of thinking though. And by fascinating I mean sad...
Explanation includes reference to the fact that "Occam's Razor is a useful piece of practical advice about preferring simpler theories, but it has no more empirical content than the Apostle's Creed."
Unfortunately i will be labeled as biased since it shows i give a thumbs up, but most of the comments i read that gave thumbs down either think they know something the author of this article doesn't or just don't provide a valid argument that explains why they disagree. or they did not read the article all the way through and stopped at "electrons have not been observed." This is what I think the author was trying to say:
I am not a scientist, so I have not personally witnessed the existence of electrons, but I am sure some scientists believe they have. Therefore, I could say I am not religious, so I have not personally witnessed the existence of god, but I am sure some Christians believe they have. Therefore, both of these beliefs (in electrons and god) are equally valid and true.
I believe this is fallacious reasoning because it confuses empirical scientists with men who have had unempirical experiences. However I do value what the author of this page says about what should be stressed in school, i.e. the scientific method and furthermore only knowledge attained strictly by the scientific method. Anything else should be regarded as knowledge not attained in this manner. This includes all accounts of history, mathematics, music etc. not just science class. Also something else that should be considered before judgements are passed is whether or not the author actually means "religion" as a group or more descriptively, "personal beliefs regarding higher powers".
I'm sick and tired of idiots saying atheism is a religion too. If I am in a relationship, and I divorce my significant other, I am no longer in a relationship. Saying that I am in a relationship is silly, you can add spin on it "Well, you are dating yourself" but that is just nonsense (which metaphorically can be true all the time, about everyone). Calling atheism a religion is only a sophomoric attempt to shift the burden of proof, to to a total lack of physical evidence on the side of the theist.
This guy works at a school where we trust him to form young minds...
No wonder other civilized countries call the US education system a joke.
Teach the controversy! HAHAHA! Really laughable. This from the same people who would only teach us abstinence as the only form of safe sex. Instead of filling our children's brains up with the bits and pieces we got wrong, let's try to teach them how we got it right.
Lastly... ID is NOT a theory... NOT. A. THEORY!
ID brings forward no physical evidence, to support it's claim. ID only wedges itself between transitional fossils and says, what transitional fossils? If creationism, or Intelligent Design (same thing) is anything, it is a hypothesis, and a failed one at that, right Dover?