Only if you ask the non religious and irreligious, of course.

That's amazing, huh?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... tab_tw_top

You have people on this forum who reject any science that contradicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Isn't that a conflict?

geo wrote:You have people on this forum who reject any science that contradicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Isn't that a conflict?

As a philosophical system of thought, no, there is no conflict. The conflict lies only with irreligious and or bigots that delude themselves with the belief that they must be critical of religion for the benefit of reason itself.
This is about as dumb as it gets.

Perhaps related to this stupidity are examples of scientists like Neils DT and L Krauss claiming that philosophy is dead.

ant wrote:As a philosophical system of thought, no, there is no conflict.

You don't believe it's a conflict that Brother Bob and Flann reject evolution?

So there's a segment of the population trying to propagate false beliefs and anti-science views (with the help of the political right wing), and philosophically there's no conflict? And those who speak out about it are dumb. Got it!

Interbane wrote:You don't believe it's a conflict that Brother Bob and Flann reject evolution?

The assumption here is that neo-Darwinism is good science. As the article shows there are flash points such as this which is not a rejection of science but of a particular theory.
The critiques of neo-darwinism are on the interpretation of the data and not just because it conflicts the bible.
This is underpinned by philosophical naturalism which is itself an ideology.

The assumption here is that neo-Darwinism is good science.

The theory of evolution is based on good science. In fact, it is some of the best science we as a species have been able to perform.

The very fact that you don't think it's good science, or that you believe it's an assumption that it's good science, is proof that there is a conflict.

Interbane wrote:The assumption here is that neo-Darwinism is good science.

The theory of evolution is based on good science. In fact, it is some of the best science we as a species have been able to perform.

The very fact that you don't think it's good science, or that you believe it's an assumption that it's good science, is proof that there is a conflict.

Who, me??

geo wrote:So there's a segment of the population trying to propagate false beliefs and anti-science views (with the help of the political right wing), and philosophically there's no conflict? And those who speak out about it are dumb. Got it!

I don't think it's "anti science' for some.
It's more likely misinformation, Geo.

But of course you are into propaganda vocabulary words like "denier"

Does science sometimes conflict with your own religious beliefs

68% say "does not conflict"
30% say "conflicts"


Geo,

Why don't you correct the 68% and tell us all what they really think.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... d-science/