|
Please forgive me for this post, but I am not trying to diss you or anything. I understand your desire to get your question posted, and some answers to what is, for you, an important question. I hope, in my own previous reply to it, that I helped in some way to do so.
I think what people might be having trouble with is that your OP seems to be trying to make a point that science might, in one form or another, be just as flawed as religious folk talking about such things as "the end times" and whatever.
However, many of us, myself included, equate one side of that argument strictly to the fundies, and to those people who might not have an education, which, in many countries is always a possibility. However, most of us look at the results which science can offer as a hedge to that stance, regardless whether we are religious or not. Religion is faith, and not a form of concrete evidence, unlike it might have been so many years in the past. It was people who observed the same results year after year who finally began to work out that observation of anything, showed a series of "rules" which weren't thrown out of whack by religious mumbo-jumbo, and that was the beginning of science and the scientific method.
Back in the really old days, almost all of the civilizations did have their own series of gods, some of them who were supposedly so fickle that they might send up a volcano explosion, just because they were having a bad hair day, and it was that mindset which formed behind the Jewish faith and that of the Catholics and the Christians (and even, yes, to Islam). Their belief was in a single god, who had his plate awfully full, I guess, who sent down prophets and only sons, etc., to help out on occasion. The Jewish folk still have the one god, but they are still waiting for the savior.
People in this world now, are educated to a point where faith and science can still exist together, unless they are from a third world country where education is not widespread, and many of these people are as uneducated as the folks in ancient civilizations. They still believe in many things which have been disproven or explained by science and other school subjects, and this is one of the things we need to correct, is to help educate these people better. As for the fundies, as I said someplace else, they are largely willfully ignorant, and that's their own problem. We shouldn't need to tolerate such shit in our classrooms, for example, by trying to teach creationism instead of evolution. It is the people who never had the opportunity to learn anything--ever--who we can help raise up by teaching them about such things as history, math, science, etc.
So while we all hear someone who might say, "It is the Lord's intent...." we have to examine the source. If it's a fundie, ignore them--they have no point. In fact, they use whatever science they need and try to ignore all the rest. I've had these fundies using fertilization means to suit their purpose, and you have idiots like the Duggars who just want to repopulate the country with their little robots, who don't have any point, except at the top of their heads. If it's an uneducated person who has no idea of the scope and reality that the rest of us live in, they should be allowed to have some leeway in the situation. WE know that there are fault lines all around the world, for example, and we know enough from previous disasters to predict what could happen if there was an earthquake so big it could wipe out a whole country. But we're still learning--science is dynamic. We can't stop where we are now and think we've learned everything there is to learn. If we did, we would, as a civilization, stagnate and die. Some people are actually surprised to learn that we haven't learned everything yet. :)
But I hope I have shed some light on why some people, including myself to some extent, have a smart-aleck response to your original post. I just think it's not worded where everyone can understand which point you were trying to make to begin with.
|