BuckeyeSoldier said:
...OMG... IM GONNA BE SICK AFTER THIS...
I am not asking for you to be sick, I am merely asking for you to be intellectually honest. As it is, you are acting as though you are some sort of intellectual-elitist, meaning that any opinion which does not value your thought processes (in this case scientific methods) in the same weight that you choose to apply them is devalued by default. However, to a theologian, a scientist's unwillingness to include the possibility of some form of divine intervention or an entity such as God, may not only appear to be misguided, it could also be perceived as being blasphemous... which could possibly have a substantially stronger negative connotation associated with it per their value system over anything that a scientist may experience in their value system (as it relates directly to their line of work.
Going back Creationism vs. Evolution:
A scientist could say that the theory of evolution did indeed happen and that man evolved from apes. He could provide all of his scientific data that reinforces his belief in this matter. However, even after all of his data is supplied, reviewed, and tested, he is still left with only a theory that has been derived from his system of belief/faith.
A theologian could say that man was not only created by God, but furthermore that man was created in God's image. In making his claim he would provide the scriptures that have been studied for thousands of years. However, even after all of his data is supplied, reviewed, and tested, he is still left with only a theory that has been derived from his system of belief/faith.
An interesting thought that someone might be left with after reading this scenario is that after the 2 theories are evaluated against each other, the evolutionist theory has messy details that are left over, such as the fact that apes still exist and that since the time that man has been known to exist, man has never seen any other primates evolve beyond their current existance.
The creationists theory, however, does not have any of those messy details pertaining to similar items that could be considered as evidence-of-denial. Another interesting piece of the puzzle is that science has demonstrated that a part of the human brain is programmed to believe in God, or other divine forces. It has been theorized that this may have actually been designed by God so that his creations would know to give him praise and thanks.
The only shared problem of either theory, is demonstrating the beginning of each: how did God come into existence and/or how was the universe formed? If you can accept both of these theories with equal weighting, then you are being intellectually honest, and not educationally biased.
