GAH! Chick Tract

So I was perusing Chick Tracts (a favorite hobby of mine, along with CAP movie reviews), and I came across this beauty:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

It covers evolution - at least sort of.  I am familiar with most of the science described in this tract, and in an unprecedented (or not) accomplishment, this tract manages to state incorrectly virtually every single aspect of science presented (to the extent that I am familiar with the science).  Granted that Chick is the champion of hyperbole and strawmen, but this is the strawman to end all strawmen.

Is it a wonder that the US is losing its technological/scientific edge to the world when we are feeding our children garbage like this?  If I were Satan trying to destroy human civilization, I would publish Chick Tracts.

GAH!

/rant

I like the classic D&D chick tract.

I'm scared that not only do people believe that, they pass it on to unsuspecting children.

/me wonders why we need to get flu shots every year if evolution is non-existant

Why what matters?

Gatyr wrote: /me wonders why we need to get flu shots every year if evolution is non-existant

Clark Kent wrote: It matters because science matters.  Undermining science is bad.  Lying about science is bad.  Making up fake things about science is bad.  Telling your children made-up lies about science is bad. I have nothing against folks believing in creation.  I have LOTS against folks misrepresenting science.

That makes sense. But what I just don't feel comfortable believing in pure, unaided science. Way too much is based on faith just be solved with lab tests. And not just faith in religious entities. Science has done a heckuva lot for mankind, but not without faith. I'm not trying to argue you Clark (I know that's pointless ), but I just wonder why there can't be a balance. It's always just one or the other. What if God gave the ideas to people to create? What if science gave people a reason to believe in God? There needs to be a happy medium, and no one seems to have the ability to reach it.

DeTrevni wrote:   I just wonder why there can't be a balance. It's always just one or the other.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.  This dichotomy is a creation (sorry) of the creationist crowd - that somehow you can't be a christian and accept evolution.  That is just false.  There are also a few sad scientist souls who think that science somehow "proves" religion wrong.  That is also false.

There are millions of people that accept the evidence for evolutionary theory, and still manage to reconcile that with religious faith and a belief in divine creation.  You don't have to choose; you can have it both ways.

Science deals with all things observable.  If it can be measured, it can be studied by science.  Anything that cannot be measured, however, is beyond the scope of science.  Religion/divinity, almost by definition, is not measurable and therefore not scientific.

Not only do science and religion not oppose each other (IMO), but they never even meet.  They address entirely different things using entirely different methods.

 

Edited by Clark Kent - 18 July 2006 at 7:38pm

DeTrevni wrote: ... we need both sides taught in schools, so children have a basis to choose, whether it be one, the other, or both, without being forcefed exclusively to one side.

What do you mean "both sides"?  There are no sides.  Science is science, and it doesn't have "sides". 

What about the physical evidence of religion? Noah's ark, the Shroud of Turin, The Garden of Eden, etc. Some people look towards science to actually enforce their beliefs

There is no scientific evidence of the existence of the divine.  Zero.  There is some scientific evidence that indicates that some of the physical occurrences described by various religions, but there is no scientific evidence for the actual existence of an actual divine being.

Yes, many people do rely on evidence for certain physical historical events to bolster their religious beliefs, but that physical evidence does not support the actual religious belief, only the physical surroundings (at best, that is.  Much of the "evidence" cited by some, like the Shroud, isn't evidence of anything at all, and often is far from scientific).

...science is based on the faith that what scientists do will work, impact humanity, etc.

No faith required.  Simple observation.  If it doesn't work it is rejected, and we try something else.  Science is fluid.  Eveything you do every day is "science" in its most basic sense.  Science is simply interacting with the observable environment and reacting to it.

Edited by Clark Kent - 18 July 2006 at 7:38pm

"Sides" referrs to creationism vs. evolution. Not sides to science.

The scientific evidence of religion is vital to some. I was not referencing the divine, but the belief in them. Perhaps finding the boat that what some believe saved all life on earth, or maybe the garden to where life started, etc. is enough to prove that God exists. Using carbon dating to test pieces of the subject, using archaeological excavations to locate the subject, and stuff like that is using science to aid religion. Even if it disproves the subject's relation to religion, it gives people the hope that it exists, still in the long term strengthening their belief.

Why is it so difficult to even try to think how science and religion can come to coexist?

Edited by DeTrevni - 18 July 2006 at 8:01pm